Urquijo v. ITF Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Urquijo v. ITF Corp.

71 A.D.2d 584, 418 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12776

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

DecidedJuly 10, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.2d 584 (Urquijo v. ITF Corp.) 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

Urquijo v. ITF Corp., 71 A.D.2d 584, 418 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 2, 1979, granting plaintiff’s motion for an order attaching the property of and the debts owing to the defendants-appellants [585]*585ITF (Overseas) Corp., its chairman Lewis, and its president Crawford, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the attachment against the property of the individual defendants Lewis and Crawford, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Neither the complaint, the moving papers at Special Term, nor the respondent’s brief on appeal spells out any conduct by the individual defendants, distinct from their corporate activities, that would authorize attachment of their personal assets. Concur— Birns, J. P., Bloom, Lupiano, Ross and Lynch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 2, 1979, granting plaintiff’s motion for an order attaching the property of and the debts owing to the defendants-appellants [585]*585ITF (Overseas) Corp., its chairman Lewis, and its president Crawford, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the attachment against the property of the individual defendants Lewis and Crawford, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Neither the complaint, the moving papers at Special Term, nor the respondent’s brief on appeal spells out any conduct by the individual defendants, distinct from their corporate activities, that would authorize attachment of their personal assets. Concur— Birns, J. P., Bloom, Lupiano, Ross and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 584, 418 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/urquijo-v-itf-corp-nyappdiv-1979.