Carlos Franco Associates, Inc. v. Seaboard Drug Co.

New York Supreme Court

Carlos Franco Associates, Inc. v. Seaboard Drug Co.

4 Misc. 2d 794, 162 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1250

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 20, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 Misc. 2d 794 (Carlos Franco Associates, Inc. v. Seaboard Drug Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlos Franco Associates, Inc. v. Seaboard Drug Co., 4 Misc. 2d 794, 162 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1250 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Irving H. Saypol, J.

Motion to increase plaintiff’s undertaking filed in support of a warrant of attachment is denied. Defendant fails to set forth any facts to show that the undertaking already filed will not be sufficient for its purpose. The mere conclusory statement that the attachment has caused damage to defendant’s business reputation does not justify such relief. That is much too abstract a premise upon which to claim additional security in the absence of supporting facts. The damages against which defendant is entitled to protection by the undertaking on an attachment, within the purview of section 907 of the Civil Practice Act, are those which materially and proximately result from the attachment (Plessner v. Continental Cas. Co., 82 N. Y. S. 2d 540, 544). Defendant makes no showing that the alleged damage claimed falls within that category.

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

Irving H. Saypol, J.

Motion to increase plaintiff’s undertaking filed in support of a warrant of attachment is denied. Defendant fails to set forth any facts to show that the undertaking already filed will not be sufficient for its purpose. The mere conclusory statement that the attachment has caused damage to defendant’s business reputation does not justify such relief. That is much too abstract a premise upon which to claim additional security in the absence of supporting facts. The damages against which defendant is entitled to protection by the undertaking on an attachment, within the purview of section 907 of the Civil Practice Act, are those which materially and proximately result from the attachment (Plessner v. Continental Cas. Co., 82 N. Y. S. 2d 540, 544). Defendant makes no showing that the alleged damage claimed falls within that category.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Misc. 2d 794, 162 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlos-franco-associates-inc-v-seaboard-drug-co-nysupct-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack