McDonnell & Co. v. Sarlie

21 A.D.2d 767, 250 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3507
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 16, 1964·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from order entered July 12, 1962, denying motion to vacate attachment dismissed as moot. Order, entered on October 22, 1962, vacating warrant of attachment unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and attachment reinstated, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. Defendant made successive motions .to dismiss the warrant of attachment issued in this action. Special Term denied the earlier motion; the second motion was granted. Upon this motion there was proof that defendant was engaged in transactions which were designed to dispose of and secrete property from his creditors. This constituted sufficient grounds (CPLR 6201, subd. 4). It is true that on the earlier application this proof was not submitted. This fact did not preclude plaintiff from introducing the proof on the second application (CPLR 6223). It having been shown on the second application that sufficient grounds for issuance of the warrant existed, it becomes academic whether the earlier application was properly denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

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

McDonnell & Co. v. Sarlie, 21 A.D.2d 767, 250 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

21 A.D.2d 767 (McDonnell & Co. v. Sarlie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Great Lakes Carbon Corp. v. Fontana
54 A.D.2d 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)