Varrichione v. Grimmett

New York Supreme Court

Varrichione v. Grimmett

28 Misc. 2d 598, 217 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2781

DecidedJune 7, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Misc. 2d 598 (Varrichione v. Grimmett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Varrichione v. Grimmett, 28 Misc. 2d 598, 217 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2781 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Abraham N. Geller, J.

In this contract action the nonresident defendant moves to vacate the warrant of attachment. Plaintiff obtained judgment and an appeal therefrom is pending, a bond to stay execution having been furnished. A motion made earlier by defendant to vacate the warrant was denied.

Defendant contends that the appeal bond is adequate security for the plaintiffs and that they are therefore, no longer entitled to the attachment. Thus, defendant actually seeks discharge [599]*599of the attachment pursuant to sections 952 and 953 of the Civil Practice Act arid return of his property rather than vacation of the warrant, whose validity was earlier sustained. This being so, defendant must give a discharge bond pursuant to section 953 of the Civil Practice Act in addition to the appeal bond already given. (Hadjopoulos v. Manousso, 197 App. Div. 56.) In the event of reversal and direction of a new trial, the appeal bond terminates. Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to the attachment or a bond in lieu thereof to secure payment of any judgment thereafter recovered.

The motion is denied, but an order may be settled providing for discharge of the attachment and the posting of a discharge bond, poundage to be paid by the moving defendant.

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

Abraham N. Geller, J.

In this contract action the nonresident defendant moves to vacate the warrant of attachment. Plaintiff obtained judgment and an appeal therefrom is pending, a bond to stay execution having been furnished. A motion made earlier by defendant to vacate the warrant was denied.

Defendant contends that the appeal bond is adequate security for the plaintiffs and that they are therefore, no longer entitled to the attachment. Thus, defendant actually seeks discharge [599]*599of the attachment pursuant to sections 952 and 953 of the Civil Practice Act arid return of his property rather than vacation of the warrant, whose validity was earlier sustained. This being so, defendant must give a discharge bond pursuant to section 953 of the Civil Practice Act in addition to the appeal bond already given. (Hadjopoulos v. Manousso, 197 App. Div. 56.) In the event of reversal and direction of a new trial, the appeal bond terminates. Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to the attachment or a bond in lieu thereof to secure payment of any judgment thereafter recovered.

The motion is denied, but an order may be settled providing for discharge of the attachment and the posting of a discharge bond, poundage to be paid by the moving defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Misc. 2d 598, 217 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varrichione-v-grimmett-nysupct-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack