Maitrejean v. Levon Properties Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 July 1974 |
| Citation | 358 N.Y.S.2d 203,45 A.D.2d 1020 |
| Parties | Philippe L. MAITREJEAN et al., Respondents, v. LEVON PROPERTIES CORPORATION et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before HOPKINS, Acting P.J., and MARTUSCELLO, LATHAM, CHRIST and MUNDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover for damage to real property (erosion of beachfront land), defendant appeal from three orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 17, 1974, January 29, 1974 and April 19, 1974, respectively, which granted plaintiffs' motion for an order of attachment and adhered to this decision upon reargument.
Appeal from order dated January 17, 1974 dismissed as moot as that order was superseded by the corrected order of January 29, 1974.
Appeal from order dated January 29, 1974 also dismissed as moot as that order was superseded by the order of April 19, 1974, granting defendants' motion for reargument but adhering to the order of January 29, 1974.
Order dated April 19, 1974 and made upon reargument reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and order of attachment vacated. One bill of $20 costs and disbursements is awarded to cover all the appeals.
Plaintiffs, individual homeowners with property abutting the Long Island Sound in Mattituck, have brought this action against defendants Levon Properties Corp., a domestic corporation, and Curtiss-Wright Corp., a foreign corporation, to recover for damage caused to their beachfront lands. Levon is an alleged subsidiary of Curtiss-Wright and plaintiffs claim that these defendants deprived their lands of natural sand replenishment, causing serious erosion of their beaches, by the construction and maintenance of two stone jetties, which extended 500 feet beyond the mean high water mark, on a 525 acre tract owned by Levon and abutting the Sound at a point west of plaintiffs' properties. During the course of this proceeding, plaintiffs moved for an order of attachment on the ground that Curtiss-Wright was a foreign corporation and that Levon was about to sell its only asset, the 525 acre tract, and dispose of the proceeds, with intent to defraud its creditors (CPLR 6201, subds. 1, 4). Actually, the land in question had already been sold and the impending sale had been publicized in the newspapers months before. By what appears to be a 'corrected' order, dated January 29, 1974, Special Term granted the attachment against any property of the defendants unless the latter posted a bond in the amount of $250,000. Thereafter, defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nippon Emo-Trans Co., Ltd. v. Emo-Trans, Inc.
...of the Judicial Conference of the State of New York to the 1977 Legislature, Leg.Doc. (1978) No. 90 at 251-52; Maitrejean v. Levon Properties Corp., 45 A.D.2d 1020, 358 N.Y. S.2d 203 (2d Dept.1974); Zeiberg v. Robosonics, Inc., 43 Misc.2d 134, 250 N.Y.S.2d 368 (1964); Elliott v. Great Atlan......
-
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Hickey Ford Sales, Inc.
...a warrant necessarily follows (Executive House Realty v. Hagen, 108 Misc.2d 986, 988, 438 N.Y.S.2d 174; see Maitrejean v. Levon Props. Corp., 45 A.D.2d 1020, 358 N.Y.S.2d 2030). Indeed, to hold that the property of defendant A may be attached solely upon proof that as to defendant B there i......
-
University Mews Associates v. Jeanmarie
...the provisional remedy of attachment must satisfy the predicate grounds set forth in CPLR--6201. See Maitrejean v. Levon Properties Corp., 45 A.D.2d 1020, 358 N.Y.S.2d 203 (1st Dept.--1974). It is a harsh statutory remedy, which Courts have strictly construed against the seekers. Siegel v. ......
-
Carey v. Sugar Curtis Circulation Company v. Sugar
...Wulfsohn v. Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, 234 N.Y. 372, 377, 138 N.E. 24, 26 (1923). See also Maitrejean v. Levon Properties, 45 A.D.2d 1020, 358 N.Y.S.2d 203 (1974); Richman v. Richman, 41 A.D.2d 993, 344 N.Y.S.2d 52 (1973); Martin Enterprises, Inc. v. M. S. Kaplan Co., 45 A......