Macmillan, Inc. v. Hafner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Macmillan, Inc. v. Hafner

42 A.D.2d 533, 344 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4186

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

DecidedJune 12, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 533 (Macmillan, Inc. v. Hafner) 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

Macmillan, Inc. v. Hafner, 42 A.D.2d 533, 344 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 16, 1972, denying appellant’s motion to vacate an order of attachment and for other relief, unanimously modified, on the law, so as to grant the motion to vacate the attachment, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. At best, respondent presented but a scintilla of proof as to the requisite elements of the fraud cause of action alleged in the complaint. Such a perfunctory showing falls short of the requirements to support the drastic remedy of attachment. The attachment was obtained ex parte long after the action had been commenced and defendants had appeared in the action. No question of jurisdiction is involved. Respondent has failed to establish that appellant knew that certain accounts receivable were uncollectible on September 30, 1968, the date when he warranted the collectibility thereof. At most respondent has shown that some of the accounts could not be collected in 1970 or 1971. This proof is insufficient to entitle respondent to the attachment under the provisions of CPLR 6201 (subd. 8) and 6211. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Steuer, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 16, 1972, denying appellant’s motion to vacate an order of attachment and for other relief, unanimously modified, on the law, so as to grant the motion to vacate the attachment, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. At best, respondent presented but a scintilla of proof as to the requisite elements of the fraud cause of action alleged in the complaint. Such a perfunctory showing falls short of the requirements to support the drastic remedy of attachment. The attachment was obtained ex parte long after the action had been commenced and defendants had appeared in the action. No question of jurisdiction is involved. Respondent has failed to establish that appellant knew that certain accounts receivable were uncollectible on September 30, 1968, the date when he warranted the collectibility thereof. At most respondent has shown that some of the accounts could not be collected in 1970 or 1971. This proof is insufficient to entitle respondent to the attachment under the provisions of CPLR 6201 (subd. 8) and 6211. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Steuer, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 533, 344 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macmillan-inc-v-hafner-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack