Costikyan v. Jacobson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Costikyan v. Jacobson

280 A.D.2d 272, 719 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 898

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 272 (Costikyan v. Jacobson) 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

Costikyan v. Jacobson, 280 A.D.2d 272, 719 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, denominated decision and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about July 17, 2000, which denied petitioner customers’ application for an attachment in aid of an arbitration they brought against respondent stockbroker, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The attachment was properly denied without a hearing, there being no issues of fact raised as to respondent’s financial condition and prospects, and no facts adduced to support petitioners’ claim that respondent will secrete, dissipate- or otherwise squander his assets (cf., County Natwest Sec. Corp. v Jesup, Josephthal & Co., 180 AD2d 468). Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, denominated decision and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about July 17, 2000, which denied petitioner customers’ application for an attachment in aid of an arbitration they brought against respondent stockbroker, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The attachment was properly denied without a hearing, there being no issues of fact raised as to respondent’s financial condition and prospects, and no facts adduced to support petitioners’ claim that respondent will secrete, dissipate- or otherwise squander his assets (cf., County Natwest Sec. Corp. v Jesup, Josephthal & Co., 180 AD2d 468). Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 272, 719 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costikyan-v-jacobson-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack