Ocino, Inc. v. Fromm

276 A.D.2d 558, 716 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10196
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 10, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 558 (Ocino, Inc. v. Fromm) 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
Ocino, Inc. v. Fromm, 276 A.D.2d 558, 716 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5227 for a judgment directing the turnover of certain shares of stock held in escrow, the appeal is from an or[559]*559der of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Arniotes, J.), dated January 20, 2000, which denied the motion of the intervenors James Mitchell, Fay Mitchell, and B & J General Contractors, Inc., for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 5240, limiting the petitioner’s right to execute against the subject shares of stock.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 5240 empowers a court with broad discretionary authority to control and regulate procedures to enforce a judgment to prevent “ ‘unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice to any person or the courts’ ” (Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 NY2d 515, 519, quoting Third Preliminary Report of Advisory Comm on Practice and Procedure, 1959, at 314; Yeshiva Tifferes Torah v Kesher Intl. Trading Corp., 246 AD2d 538; Paz v Long Is. R. R., 241 AD2d 486). The appellants failed to demonstrate their entitlement to relief under this provision. The petitioner is the assignee of a judgment against, among others, the appellants, arising from their default on a line of credit. The appellant James Mitchell executed a guarantee therefor. He also executed an indemnification agreement in favor of a co-guarantor and fellow judgment debtor, pursuant to which Mitchell pledged the subject shares of stock as security. Mitchell also acknowledged “responcibility” [sic] for the underlying obligation. The petitioner, as assignee of the judgment, is entitled to seek satisfaction thereof by executing on the shares of stock. Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, Friedmann and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Lew v. Sobel
2021 NY Slip Op 01413 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 A.D.2d 558, 716 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ocino-inc-v-fromm-nyappdiv-2000.