Pesia Pam Shisgal v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pesia Pam Shisgal v. Brown

3 A.D.3d 434, 770 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 661

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 434 (Pesia Pam Shisgal v. Brown) 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

Pesia Pam Shisgal v. Brown, 3 A.D.3d 434, 770 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about July 25, 2003, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for an order of attachment pursuant to CPLR 6201 (3), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs, having failed sufficiently to demonstrate that defendants had disposed of or secreted assets with intent to defraud their creditors, were not entitled to an order of attachment. Affidavits raising mere suspicions of an intent to defraud are not a sufficient ground for the sought relief (see Rosenthal v. Rochester Button Co., 148 AD2d 375, 376 [1989]). The denial of the relief was also proper in light of plaintiffs’ failure to show a probability of success on the merits of their claims (see Societe Generale Alsacienne De Banque, Zurich v Flemingdon Dev. Corp., 118 AD2d 769, 773 [1986]).

[435]*435We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about July 25, 2003, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion for an order of attachment pursuant to CPLR 6201 (3), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs, having failed sufficiently to demonstrate that defendants had disposed of or secreted assets with intent to defraud their creditors, were not entitled to an order of attachment. Affidavits raising mere suspicions of an intent to defraud are not a sufficient ground for the sought relief (see Rosenthal v. Rochester Button Co., 148 AD2d 375, 376 [1989]). The denial of the relief was also proper in light of plaintiffs’ failure to show a probability of success on the merits of their claims (see Societe Generale Alsacienne De Banque, Zurich v Flemingdon Dev. Corp., 118 AD2d 769, 773 [1986]).

[435]*435We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 434, 770 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pesia-pam-shisgal-v-brown-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack