Karnell v. Mincieli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karnell v. Mincieli

81 A.D.2d 634, 440 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11139

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

DecidedApril 20, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 A.D.2d 634 (Karnell v. Mincieli) 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

Karnell v. Mincieli, 81 A.D.2d 634, 440 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to impose a constructive trust upon the proceeds of a fire insurance policy, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated June 3, 1980, which denied his motion to confirm an ex parte order of attachment and granted defendant’s cross motion to vacate the order of attachment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Special Term properly exercised its discretion in granting defendant’s cross motion to vacate the order of attachment. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing the grounds for the attachment, the need for continuing the levy and the probability that he will succeed on the merits (see CPLR 6211, subd [b]; 6212, subd [a]; 6223, subd [b]). Damiani, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to impose a constructive trust upon the proceeds of a fire insurance policy, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated June 3, 1980, which denied his motion to confirm an ex parte order of attachment and granted defendant’s cross motion to vacate the order of attachment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Special Term properly exercised its discretion in granting defendant’s cross motion to vacate the order of attachment. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing the grounds for the attachment, the need for continuing the levy and the probability that he will succeed on the merits (see CPLR 6211, subd [b]; 6212, subd [a]; 6223, subd [b]). Damiani, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 634, 440 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karnell-v-mincieli-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack