Manalich v. Compania Cubana De Aviacion, S. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manalich v. Compania Cubana De Aviacion, S. A.

12 A.D.2d 486, 206 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7347

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 486 (Manalich v. Compania Cubana De Aviacion, S. A.) 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

Manalich v. Compania Cubana De Aviacion, S. A., 12 A.D.2d 486, 206 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to section 977-b of the Civil Practice Act, in which the court appointed a temporary receiver for the defendant, Compania Cubana de Aviacion, S. A., and in which the receiver took possession of a certain DC-4 aircraft, the receiver appeals from so much of an order of the Special Term, Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 19, 1960, as grants without a hearing, the petition of the petitioner, Aerovías “ Q”, S. A. and directs the receiver to surrender to such petitioner the said aircraft. Order insofar as appealed from reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of holding hearings and, on the basis of the proof adduced at such hearings, determining the identity of the owner of the aircraft at the time the receiver took possession of it. In our opinion the record contains a sufficient showing of facts to require a trial on the issue of the title and ownership of the aircraft at the time the receiver took possession (cf. Christopoulos v. Liakas, 285 App. Div. 884). In view of the rapidly changing events affecting this aircraft and all the parties here involved, the interests of justice would be served best by making a determination of the issue after a plenary trial rather than upon allegations contained in conflicting affidavits. The stay heretofore granted is continued pending the determination of the application by Special Term after the hearings. Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur; Beldock, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to affirm the order and to deny the stay, with the following memorandum: The moving [487]*487papers show affirmatively that title to the chattel in question is vested in petitioner. The opposing affidavit is made by an attorney who has no knowledge of the facts of title. There is no express denial of title in petitioner and there is no proof to the contrary. Nor is there any claim or proof that title is in defendant. The only attack is on the authority of the officers of the petitioner corporation to represent that corporation. Such an attack is not sufficient to warrant a hearing with respect to title.

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

In an action pursuant to section 977-b of the Civil Practice Act, in which the court appointed a temporary receiver for the defendant, Compania Cubana de Aviacion, S. A., and in which the receiver took possession of a certain DC-4 aircraft, the receiver appeals from so much of an order of the Special Term, Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 19, 1960, as grants without a hearing, the petition of the petitioner, Aerovías “ Q”, S. A. and directs the receiver to surrender to such petitioner the said aircraft. Order insofar as appealed from reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of holding hearings and, on the basis of the proof adduced at such hearings, determining the identity of the owner of the aircraft at the time the receiver took possession of it. In our opinion the record contains a sufficient showing of facts to require a trial on the issue of the title and ownership of the aircraft at the time the receiver took possession (cf. Christopoulos v. Liakas, 285 App. Div. 884). In view of the rapidly changing events affecting this aircraft and all the parties here involved, the interests of justice would be served best by making a determination of the issue after a plenary trial rather than upon allegations contained in conflicting affidavits. The stay heretofore granted is continued pending the determination of the application by Special Term after the hearings. Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur; Beldock, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to affirm the order and to deny the stay, with the following memorandum: The moving [487]*487papers show affirmatively that title to the chattel in question is vested in petitioner. The opposing affidavit is made by an attorney who has no knowledge of the facts of title. There is no express denial of title in petitioner and there is no proof to the contrary. Nor is there any claim or proof that title is in defendant. The only attack is on the authority of the officers of the petitioner corporation to represent that corporation. Such an attack is not sufficient to warrant a hearing with respect to title.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 486, 206 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manalich-v-compania-cubana-de-aviacion-s-a-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack