Myles v. Meyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Myles v. Meyer

180 A.D.2d 458

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 458 (Myles v. Meyer) 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

Myles v. Meyer, 180 A.D.2d 458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered on May 3, 1990, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 5225, for a lien against the proceeds to which respondent Grand-Perridine Development Corp. might be entitled upon dissolution of a partnership known as Fox Meadow Associates, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The affidavit of respondent Meyer’s former attorney that he formed respondent Grand-Perridine Development Corp. at Meyer’s request and handed all of its stock over to him, and the mortgage documents signed by Meyer on behalf of GrandPerridine, sufficed to show, prima facie, that Meyer, petitioner’s judgment debtor, is the sole owner of Grand-Perridine stock. Respondents’ unsubstantiated general denials in their answer to the petition raised no triable issues of fact concerning petitioner’s entitlement to a lien against Grand-Perridine’s 45% interest in Fox Meadow Associates. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered on May 3, 1990, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 5225, for a lien against the proceeds to which respondent Grand-Perridine Development Corp. might be entitled upon dissolution of a partnership known as Fox Meadow Associates, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The affidavit of respondent Meyer’s former attorney that he formed respondent Grand-Perridine Development Corp. at Meyer’s request and handed all of its stock over to him, and the mortgage documents signed by Meyer on behalf of GrandPerridine, sufficed to show, prima facie, that Meyer, petitioner’s judgment debtor, is the sole owner of Grand-Perridine stock. Respondents’ unsubstantiated general denials in their answer to the petition raised no triable issues of fact concerning petitioner’s entitlement to a lien against Grand-Perridine’s 45% interest in Fox Meadow Associates. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myles-v-meyer-nyappdiv-1992.