Bank of Smithtown v. Cartago Investment & Trading, S. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bank of Smithtown v. Cartago Investment & Trading, S. A.

162 A.D.2d 652, 559 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8210

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 25, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 652 (Bank of Smithtown v. Cartago Investment & Trading, S. A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of Smithtown v. Cartago Investment & Trading, S. A., 162 A.D.2d 652, 559 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note and for money had and received, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered October 4, 1988, as, upon granting the plaintiff’s motion to renew, adhered to its original determination vacating a prior order of attachment of the same court dated March 4, 1988.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and, upon renewal, the order of attachment is reinstated.

We find that the new evidence submitted by the plaintiff bank establishes that, under the circumstances, the requested attachment is proper (see, CPLR 6201 [3]). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover on a promissory note and for money had and received, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered October 4, 1988, as, upon granting the plaintiff’s motion to renew, adhered to its original determination vacating a prior order of attachment of the same court dated March 4, 1988.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and, upon renewal, the order of attachment is reinstated.

We find that the new evidence submitted by the plaintiff bank establishes that, under the circumstances, the requested attachment is proper (see, CPLR 6201 [3]). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 652, 559 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-smithtown-v-cartago-investment-trading-s-a-nyappdiv-1990.