Claymont v. Levitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claymont v. Levitt

140 A.D.2d 578, 528 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5636

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

DecidedMay 23, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 578 (Claymont v. Levitt) 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

Claymont v. Levitt, 140 A.D.2d 578, 528 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff placed a restraining notice on the proceeds of artwork and other articles consigned for sale by the wife of the defendant judgment debtor. The defendant’s wife, in an affidavit, swore that these items were her property obtained prior to her marriage to the judgment debtor. The sole evidence submitted by the plaintiff to support his contention that the consigned property belonged to the defendant was a [579]*579vague, nonspecific statement in his affidavit that the descriptions of "many” of the articles consigned for sale matched articles he had seen at the defendant’s house before the defendant married. This claim did not satisfy the plaintiff’s obligation to produce evidence from which the hearing court could infer that the property sold by the defendant’s wife actually belonged to the defendant (see, Matter of New York Credit Men’s Assn. v Schneider, 247 App Div 896, appeal dismissed 273 NY 625, mot to vacate order of dismissal denied 274 NY 637). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff placed a restraining notice on the proceeds of artwork and other articles consigned for sale by the wife of the defendant judgment debtor. The defendant’s wife, in an affidavit, swore that these items were her property obtained prior to her marriage to the judgment debtor. The sole evidence submitted by the plaintiff to support his contention that the consigned property belonged to the defendant was a [579]*579vague, nonspecific statement in his affidavit that the descriptions of "many” of the articles consigned for sale matched articles he had seen at the defendant’s house before the defendant married. This claim did not satisfy the plaintiff’s obligation to produce evidence from which the hearing court could infer that the property sold by the defendant’s wife actually belonged to the defendant (see, Matter of New York Credit Men’s Assn. v Schneider, 247 App Div 896, appeal dismissed 273 NY 625, mot to vacate order of dismissal denied 274 NY 637). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 578, 528 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claymont-v-levitt-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack