George A. Fuller Co. v. Vitro Corp. of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

George A. Fuller Co. v. Vitro Corp. of America

26 A.D.2d 916, 274 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3154

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 916 (George A. Fuller Co. v. Vitro Corp. of America) 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

George A. Fuller Co. v. Vitro Corp. of America, 26 A.D.2d 916, 274 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered September 21, 1966, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion to vacate the attachment is denied and the attachment is reinstated, with $30 costs and disbursements to abide the event. The defendant moved for an order pursuant to CPLR 6223 to vacate a warrant of attachment and levies made thereunder. In the circumstances the attachment could only be vacated if it should be found that it is unnecessary to the security of the plaintiff”. We agree with the Appellate Term’s conclusion in Zeiberg v. Robosonics, Inc. (43 Misc 2d 134) that the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the attachment is unnecessary. The defendant failed to sustain that burden. Moreover, on the entire record it seems clear that the attachment is needed for security, and, accordingly, the attachment and levies made thereunder should not have been vacated. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order entered September 21, 1966, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion to vacate the attachment is denied and the attachment is reinstated, with $30 costs and disbursements to abide the event. The defendant moved for an order pursuant to CPLR 6223 to vacate a warrant of attachment and levies made thereunder. In the circumstances the attachment could only be vacated if it should be found that it is unnecessary to the security of the plaintiff”. We agree with the Appellate Term’s conclusion in Zeiberg v. Robosonics, Inc. (43 Misc 2d 134) that the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the attachment is unnecessary. The defendant failed to sustain that burden. Moreover, on the entire record it seems clear that the attachment is needed for security, and, accordingly, the attachment and levies made thereunder should not have been vacated. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 916, 274 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-a-fuller-co-v-vitro-corp-of-america-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack