Starbare II Partners, L. P. v. Sloan

216 A.D.2d 238, 629 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7120
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 29, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 238 (Starbare II Partners, L. P. v. Sloan) 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
Starbare II Partners, L. P. v. Sloan, 216 A.D.2d 238, 629 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7120 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

[239]*239Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered May 24, 1994, which granted reargument of an order, same court and Justice, entered April 13,1994, inter alia, denying plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5225 insofar as it sought an order directing defendant Stephen Sloan to deliver to the Sheriff of the City of New York certain described artwork in his possession but located elsewhere than 510 Park Avenue, New York, New York, and, upon reargument, inter alia, adhered to that decision, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, plaintiff’s motion granted and defendant Stephen Sloan directed to turn over all the described artwork, wherever located. Appeal from the above described order entered April 13, 1994, unanimously dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Since the IAS Court had personal jurisdiction over defendant and judgment debtor Stephen Sloan, it was entitled under CPLR 5225 (a) to order him to turn over to the Sheriff of the City of New York property located outside of the State (see, Matter of Feit & Drexler v Drexler, 760 F2d 406, 414; Matter of Newmark v C & C Super Corp., 3 AD2d 823, affd 3 NY2d 790). Since the judgment held by plaintiff as assignee was in an amount far in excess of the value of the subject artwork in defendant’s possession and purportedly located in New Jersey, we find that the court erred in failing to extend the reach of its order to include it. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

Gowen v. Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc.
New York Supreme Court, 2018
Estates of Ungar Ex Rel. Strachman v. Palestinian Authority
715 F. Supp. 2d 253 (D. Rhode Island, 2010)
Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. Falor
926 N.E.2d 1202 (New York Court of Appeals, 2010)
Signature Bank v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
67 A.D.3d 917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd.
911 N.E.2d 825 (New York Court of Appeals, 2009)
Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd.
544 F.3d 78 (Second Circuit, 2008)
Morgenthau v. Avion Resources Ltd.
49 A.D.3d 50 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC v. APP International Finance Co.
41 A.D.3d 25 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Miller v. Doniger
28 A.D.3d 405 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Mones v. Commercial Bank of Kuwait, SAK
399 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D. New York, 2005)
Sloan v. Starbare II Partners, L.P.
256 A.D.2d 104 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 A.D.2d 238, 629 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starbare-ii-partners-l-p-v-sloan-nyappdiv-1995.