In re the Arbitration between Cooper & U.S. Petroleum Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Cooper & U.S. Petroleum Corp.

180 A.D.2d 421

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 421 (In re the Arbitration between Cooper & U.S. Petroleum Corp.) 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

In re the Arbitration between Cooper & U.S. Petroleum Corp., 180 A.D.2d 421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered July 30, 1991, which denied petitioner’s motion to [422]*422hold respondent in contempt, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS court that the evidence does not demonstrate that the transactions between respondent and its subsidiary were intended to, or actually did, prejudice petitioner’s rights. Moreover, when respondent filed security against the judgment, the automatic stay of CPLR 5519 effectively terminated the restraining notice (see, Silbert v Silbert, 25 AD2d 570; 6 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 5222.03). While petitioner maintains that the judgment is for more than the amount stated in the restraining notice, contemplating as it does future quantification and payment of amounts presently uncertain, CPLR 5222 (a) specifically provides that a restraining notice shall specify "the amount of the judgment and the amount then due thereon”. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered July 30, 1991, which denied petitioner’s motion to [422]*422hold respondent in contempt, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS court that the evidence does not demonstrate that the transactions between respondent and its subsidiary were intended to, or actually did, prejudice petitioner’s rights. Moreover, when respondent filed security against the judgment, the automatic stay of CPLR 5519 effectively terminated the restraining notice (see, Silbert v Silbert, 25 AD2d 570; 6 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 5222.03). While petitioner maintains that the judgment is for more than the amount stated in the restraining notice, contemplating as it does future quantification and payment of amounts presently uncertain, CPLR 5222 (a) specifically provides that a restraining notice shall specify "the amount of the judgment and the amount then due thereon”. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-cooper-us-petroleum-corp-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack