Zeiberg v. Robosonics, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Zeiberg v. Robosonics, Inc.

43 Misc. 2d 134, 250 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1793

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 7, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 43 Misc. 2d 134 (Zeiberg v. Robosonics, Inc.) 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

Zeiberg v. Robosonics, Inc., 43 Misc. 2d 134, 250 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The attack upon the order of attachment was grounded upon the fact that the defendant foreign corporation is authorized to do business in this State and has its principal office in this city. In the circumstances, it was contended, and the court below so ruled in vacating the warrant, that an attachment was unnecessary for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction. The provisional remedy, however, is not intended as solely a method of acquiring jurisdiction. It also performs the role of providing security for a plaintiff. In the present instance the defendant failed to show that the attachment was “ unnecessary to the security of the plaintiff” (CPLR 6223). Moreover, the fact that the defendant is a foreign corporation duly authorized to transact business in the State of New York, gives it no immunity from attachment (Prentiss v. Greene, 193 App. Div. 672, 678). Nor does the statute (CPLR 6201) exempt from its provisions foreign corporations which are doing business in this State.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and the motion to vacate the order of attachment denied.

Concur — Gold, J. P., Tilzer and Hofstadter, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The attack upon the order of attachment was grounded upon the fact that the defendant foreign corporation is authorized to do business in this State and has its principal office in this city. In the circumstances, it was contended, and the court below so ruled in vacating the warrant, that an attachment was unnecessary for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction. The provisional remedy, however, is not intended as solely a method of acquiring jurisdiction. It also performs the role of providing security for a plaintiff. In the present instance the defendant failed to show that the attachment was “ unnecessary to the security of the plaintiff” (CPLR 6223). Moreover, the fact that the defendant is a foreign corporation duly authorized to transact business in the State of New York, gives it no immunity from attachment (Prentiss v. Greene, 193 App. Div. 672, 678). Nor does the statute (CPLR 6201) exempt from its provisions foreign corporations which are doing business in this State.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and the motion to vacate the order of attachment denied.

Concur — Gold, J. P., Tilzer and Hofstadter, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Misc. 2d 134, 250 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeiberg-v-robosonics-inc-nyappterm-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack