Jannuzzo v. de Cuevas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jannuzzo v. de Cuevas

216 A.D.2d 37, 627 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6109

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

DecidedJune 8, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 37 (Jannuzzo v. de Cuevas) 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

Jannuzzo v. de Cuevas, 216 A.D.2d 37, 627 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered December 5, 1994, awarding plaintiff money damages against defendant, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered November 28, 1994, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and an order of attachment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff on his cause of action for an account stated, in view of defendant’s failure to object to the invoices plaintiff sent her and her payment of a portion of the indebtedness both before and after commencement of the action (Davis Markel & Edwards v Solomon, 204 AD2d 182; Shea & Gould v Burr, 194 AD2d 369). The order of attachment was properly granted pursuant to CPLR 6201 (3), based upon plaintiff’s proof that defendant was attempting to frustrate the judgment by assigning art work that constituted the bulk of her assets in this State (see, Societe Generale Alsacienne De Banque v Flemingdon Dev. Corp., 118 AD2d 769, 773). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered December 5, 1994, awarding plaintiff money damages against defendant, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered November 28, 1994, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and an order of attachment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff on his cause of action for an account stated, in view of defendant’s failure to object to the invoices plaintiff sent her and her payment of a portion of the indebtedness both before and after commencement of the action (Davis Markel & Edwards v Solomon, 204 AD2d 182; Shea & Gould v Burr, 194 AD2d 369). The order of attachment was properly granted pursuant to CPLR 6201 (3), based upon plaintiff’s proof that defendant was attempting to frustrate the judgment by assigning art work that constituted the bulk of her assets in this State (see, Societe Generale Alsacienne De Banque v Flemingdon Dev. Corp., 118 AD2d 769, 773). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 37, 627 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jannuzzo-v-de-cuevas-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack