Sullivan & Worcester LLP v. Takieddine

• Decision Date: 04 May 2010
• Citation: 73 A.D.3d 442,899 N.Y.S.2d 609
• Parties: SULLIVAN & WORCESTER LLP, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ziad TAKIEDDINE, Respondent-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

899 N.Y.S.2d 609

73 A.D.3d 442

SULLIVAN & WORCESTER LLP, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.Ziad TAKIEDDINE, Respondent-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

May 4, 2010.

Sullivan & Worcester LLP, New York (Mitchell C. Stein of counsel), for appellant.

Siller Wilk LLP, New York (Eric B. LaMons of counsel), for respondent.

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 A.D.2d 270, 650 N.Y.S.2d 124 [1996] ). Petitioner'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 A.D.2d 272, 272, 719 N.Y.S.2d 856 [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.

ANDRIAS, J.P., FRIEDMAN, CATTERSON, McGUIRE, ROMÁN, JJ., concur.