Rockfall Apartments v. Posner

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rockfall Apartments v. Posner

153 N.Y.S. 979

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 16, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 153 N.Y.S. 979 (Rockfall Apartments v. Posner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rockfall Apartments v. Posner, 153 N.Y.S. 979 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PAGE, J.

If this action had been brought to foreclose the lien upon the chattels, and the moving papers alleged default after demand and that the property was iñ possession of the defendant, a warrant of attachment could have issued without the statement of the other grounds of attachment required by section 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure. . See Lien Law (Consol. Laws, c. 33) § 206; Coiro v. Baron, 158 App. Div. 591, 143 N. Y. Supp. 853. The action was brought to recover the debt, and not to foreclose upon the security, and the allegations as to the defendant being about to remove his property from the state with intent to defraud his creditors are entirely insufficient to sustain the warrant, being mere conclusions, and no sufficient allegations of facts upon which the conclusions are based.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

PAGE, J.

If this action had been brought to foreclose the lien upon the chattels, and the moving papers alleged default after demand and that the property was iñ possession of the defendant, a warrant of attachment could have issued without the statement of the other grounds of attachment required by section 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure. . See Lien Law (Consol. Laws, c. 33) § 206; Coiro v. Baron, 158 App. Div. 591, 143 N. Y. Supp. 853. The action was brought to recover the debt, and not to foreclose upon the security, and the allegations as to the defendant being about to remove his property from the state with intent to defraud his creditors are entirely insufficient to sustain the warrant, being mere conclusions, and no sufficient allegations of facts upon which the conclusions are based.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 N.Y.S. 979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rockfall-apartments-v-posner-nyappterm-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack