Sullivan & Worcester LLP v. Takieddine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sullivan & Worcester LLP v. Takieddine

73 A.D.3d 442, 899 N.Y.S.2d 609

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

DecidedMay 4, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 442 (Sullivan & Worcester LLP v. Takieddine) 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

Sullivan & Worcester LLP v. Takieddine, 73 A.D.3d 442, 899 N.Y.S.2d 609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered October 5, 2009, which, in an action for unpaid attorneys’ fees, denied petitioner law firm’s application to attach in aid of arbitration respondent former client’s interest in the action that petitioner had first been retained to represent respondent wherein respondent sought, inter alia, the return of a down payment on an airplane, but enjoined respondent from assigning his interest in that action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The denial of an attachment was a provident exercise of the court’s discretion, as there was no showing that a potential arbitration award may be rendered ineffectual without an attachment (see Matter of H.I.G. Capital Mgt. v Ligator, 233 AD2d 270 [1996]). Fetitioner’s papers contain no details as to respondent’s financial condition, nor is there any assertion that respondent “will secrete, dissipate or otherwise squander his assets” before the arbitration award is rendered (Costikyan v Jacobson, 280 AD2d 272 [2001]). There is also no evidence or allegation contradicting respondent’s sworn statement that he has never had any judgments rendered against him, and that he is financially solvent and stable.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Catter-son, McGuire and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered October 5, 2009, which, in an action for unpaid attorneys’ fees, denied petitioner law firm’s application to attach in aid of arbitration respondent former client’s interest in the action that petitioner had first been retained to represent respondent wherein respondent sought, inter alia, the return of a down payment on an airplane, but enjoined respondent from assigning his interest in that action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The denial of an attachment was a provident exercise of the court’s discretion, as there was no showing that a potential arbitration award may be rendered ineffectual without an attachment (see Matter of H.I.G. Capital Mgt. v Ligator, 233 AD2d 270 [1996]). Fetitioner’s papers contain no details as to respondent’s financial condition, nor is there any assertion that respondent “will secrete, dissipate or otherwise squander his assets” before the arbitration award is rendered (Costikyan v Jacobson, 280 AD2d 272 [2001]). There is also no evidence or allegation contradicting respondent’s sworn statement that he has never had any judgments rendered against him, and that he is financially solvent and stable.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Catter-son, McGuire and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 442, 899 N.Y.S.2d 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-worcester-llp-v-takieddine-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack