Citibank, N.A. v. Prime Motor Inns Ltd. Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citibank, N.A. v. Prime Motor Inns Ltd. Partnership

288 A.D.2d 217, 732 N.Y.S.2d 574, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10412

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

DecidedNovember 5, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 217 (Citibank, N.A. v. Prime Motor Inns Ltd. Partnership) 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

Citibank, N.A. v. Prime Motor Inns Ltd. Partnership, 288 A.D.2d 217, 732 N.Y.S.2d 574, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a turnover proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225 and 5227, Joseph Selig and Tremayne Selig appeal, and Martin W. Field separately appeals, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated June 1, 2000, as directed them and/or their custodians to turn over certain funds to the petitioner to satisfy a judgment entered against Martin W. Field.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as [218]*218appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the terms of the assignment in question set forth the clear and unambiguous intent of the parties to create a security interest. Therefore, the assignment was subject to the priority rules of the Uniform Commercial Code (see, Granite Partners v Bear, Stearns & Co., 17 F Supp 2d 275; UCC 9-102 [1]). Further, as Citibank’s execution and levy were effective in all respects, the court properly found that Citibank’s rights as a lien creditor in connection with the assignment were superior to the rights of Joseph Selig (see, UCC 9-301 [1]). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In a turnover proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225 and 5227, Joseph Selig and Tremayne Selig appeal, and Martin W. Field separately appeals, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated June 1, 2000, as directed them and/or their custodians to turn over certain funds to the petitioner to satisfy a judgment entered against Martin W. Field.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as [218]*218appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the terms of the assignment in question set forth the clear and unambiguous intent of the parties to create a security interest. Therefore, the assignment was subject to the priority rules of the Uniform Commercial Code (see, Granite Partners v Bear, Stearns & Co., 17 F Supp 2d 275; UCC 9-102 [1]). Further, as Citibank’s execution and levy were effective in all respects, the court properly found that Citibank’s rights as a lien creditor in connection with the assignment were superior to the rights of Joseph Selig (see, UCC 9-301 [1]). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 217, 732 N.Y.S.2d 574, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-na-v-prime-motor-inns-ltd-partnership-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack