Raze Contracting, Inc. v. Colombo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raze Contracting, Inc. v. Colombo

16 A.D.3d 656, 791 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3313

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 656 (Raze Contracting, Inc. v. Colombo) 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

Raze Contracting, Inc. v. Colombo, 16 A.D.3d 656, 791 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), dated March 24, 2004, as amended April 9, 2004, which denied its motion to confirm an order of attachment and granted the cross motion of the defendant to vacate the order of attachment.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed, with costs.

On a motion to vacate an order of attachment, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the grounds for the attachment, the need to continue the levy, and the probability of success on the merits (see CPLR 6223 [b]). Here, the Supreme Court properly vacated the order of attachment on the ground that the plaintiff failed to meet those requirements (see Rothman v Rogers, 221 AD2d 330 [1995]; Benedict v Browne, 289 AD2d 433 [2001]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), dated March 24, 2004, as amended April 9, 2004, which denied its motion to confirm an order of attachment and granted the cross motion of the defendant to vacate the order of attachment.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed, with costs.

On a motion to vacate an order of attachment, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the grounds for the attachment, the need to continue the levy, and the probability of success on the merits (see CPLR 6223 [b]). Here, the Supreme Court properly vacated the order of attachment on the ground that the plaintiff failed to meet those requirements (see Rothman v Rogers, 221 AD2d 330 [1995]; Benedict v Browne, 289 AD2d 433 [2001]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 656, 791 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raze-contracting-inc-v-colombo-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack