Martin v. Rice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Rice

221 A.D.2d 605, 635 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12449

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 605 (Martin v. Rice) 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

Martin v. Rice, 221 A.D.2d 605, 635 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12449 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties to a certain thoroughbred horse named "Mikey”, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated August 12, 1993, which, after a hearing, denied the plaintiffs motion for the provisional seizure of the horse pursuant to CPLR article 71 and for a preliminary injunction enjoining the transfer of the horse.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof with respect to the provisional seizure of the horse pursuant to CPLR 7101 and 7102 and a preliminary injunction enjoining the transfer of the horse (see, East Side Car Wash v K.R.K. Capitol, 102 AD2d 157, 161; Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862).

The plaintiff’s argument concerning a bailment for the mutual benefit of the parties is raised for the first time on appeal and is, therefore, unpreserved for appellate review (see, Synder v Newcomb Oil Co., 194 AD2d 53, 61). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties to a certain thoroughbred horse named "Mikey”, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated August 12, 1993, which, after a hearing, denied the plaintiffs motion for the provisional seizure of the horse pursuant to CPLR article 71 and for a preliminary injunction enjoining the transfer of the horse.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof with respect to the provisional seizure of the horse pursuant to CPLR 7101 and 7102 and a preliminary injunction enjoining the transfer of the horse (see, East Side Car Wash v K.R.K. Capitol, 102 AD2d 157, 161; Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860, 862).

The plaintiff’s argument concerning a bailment for the mutual benefit of the parties is raised for the first time on appeal and is, therefore, unpreserved for appellate review (see, Synder v Newcomb Oil Co., 194 AD2d 53, 61). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 605, 635 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-rice-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack