In re the Arbitration between Settineri & Jacobs

5 A.D.2d 885, 172 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6537
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 24, 1958
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 A.D.2d 885 (In re the Arbitration between Settineri & Jacobs) 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 Settineri & Jacobs, 5 A.D.2d 885, 172 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Opinion

—Appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a warrant of attachment. On June 22, 1956 respondent obtained, on his affidavit and a complaint containing four causes of action, the warrant against appellants on the ground that they were guilty of fraud in procuring a contract. Appellants moved to vacate the warrant on the grounds that the facts in support of the warrant were insufficient and that the complaint contained causes of action other than for a sum of money only. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate the warrant granted, with $10 costs. In our opinion, the facts contained in the affidavit and complaint, upon which the warrant was granted, are insufficient. They fail to set forth facts showing, at least prima facie, that appellants have been “guilty of a fraud in contracting or incurring the liability” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 903, subd. 6). It would appear from this record that the fraud, if any, is with respect to the subsequent performance of the contract rather than in its inducement or in its inception. Such subsequent fraudulent conduct in relation to the performance of the contract cannot sustain the warrant of attachment on the ground upon which it was issued, namely, that appellants have been guilty of a fraud in contracting or incurring the liability (Novotny [886]*886v. Kosloff, 214 N. Y. 12, 14).

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bersani v. GEN. ACC. FIRE CORP.
330 N.E.2d 68 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
Bersani v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.
330 N.E.2d 68 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A.D.2d 885, 172 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-settineri-jacobs-nyappdiv-1958.