Gutman v. Savas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gutman v. Savas

243 A.D.2d 370, 663 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10794

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 370 (Gutman v. Savas) 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

Gutman v. Savas, 243 A.D.2d 370, 663 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered April 15, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ motion for an attachment of the property of the individual defendant-appellant, and denied the corporate defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaims seeking to cancel a mortgage and enjoin plaintiffs from filing further mortgages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The attachment was properly granted as against the individual defendant-appellant, a nondomiciliary residing outside the State, upon a sufficient showing that he is liable to plaintiffs for money had and received in an amount exceeding all counterclaims known to plaintiffs (CPLR 6201 [1]; 6212 [a]; see, MCT Shipping Corp. v Sabet, 497 F Supp 1078,1086). Concerning the mortgage, numerous issues of fact exist as to its validity, defendants’ claim of want of consideration being contradicted by canceled checks, the provision that future advances were to be secured, and the accounting delivered to defendants reflecting such advances. We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Colabella, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered April 15, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ motion for an attachment of the property of the individual defendant-appellant, and denied the corporate defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaims seeking to cancel a mortgage and enjoin plaintiffs from filing further mortgages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The attachment was properly granted as against the individual defendant-appellant, a nondomiciliary residing outside the State, upon a sufficient showing that he is liable to plaintiffs for money had and received in an amount exceeding all counterclaims known to plaintiffs (CPLR 6201 [1]; 6212 [a]; see, MCT Shipping Corp. v Sabet, 497 F Supp 1078,1086). Concerning the mortgage, numerous issues of fact exist as to its validity, defendants’ claim of want of consideration being contradicted by canceled checks, the provision that future advances were to be secured, and the accounting delivered to defendants reflecting such advances. We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 370, 663 N.Y.S.2d 189, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutman-v-savas-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack