On February 05, 2015 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
Cdc Development Properties, Inc.,
and
American Independent Paper Mills Supply Co., Inc.,
Hudson Harbor Homes, Inc.,
for Commercial
in the District Court of Westchester County.
Preview
MARK E. CONSTANTINE, ESQ.
106 NORTH BROADWAY
IRVINGTON, NEW YORK 10533
PHONE (914) 631-0410 FAX (914) 631-0440
February 21, 2018
VIA E-FILE
Supreme Court of the State of New York
Westchester County
111 Martin Luther King Jr, Boulevard
White Plains, New York 10601
Attn..: Hon. Lawrence Ecker, JSC and Hon. Nicholas Colabella, JSC
Re: CDC v. AIP, et al, Index No.: 51573-2015
Application for Order of Attachment and Order to Show Cause
Your Honours:
Greetings. Please be reminded that the undersigned is the attorney of record for AIP
in the above referenced matter.
I am writing to provide more particular opposition to CDC's order to show cause
seeking a TRO to prevent the sale of the building noticed for this afternoon at 330 pm
and CDC's purported filing for an ex parte order of attachment presumably pursuant to
section 6201 of the CPLR.
The fulltext of section 6201 of the CPLR is reproduced below and, although the
undersigned has yet to see either one of CDC's applications, itis respectfully submitted
that CDC cannot establish any of the prerequisites enumerated in the statute such that
they do not qualify for the extraordinary relief they seek.
"New York Consolidated Civil Practim I2w and Rules - CVP for attachment
Laws, § 6201. Grounds
...........
.... .......... ....
.......................
....
...........
. .........................
..... .....
........... ................
An order of attachment may be granted in any action, except a matrimonial
action, where the plaintiff has demanded and would be entitled, in whole or in part, or in
the alternative, to a money judgment against one or more defendants, when:
1. the defendant is a nondomiciliary residing without the state, or is a foreign
corporation not qualified to do business in the state; or
2. the defendant resides or is domiciled in the state and cannot be personally served
despite diligent efforts to do so; or
3. the defendant, with intent to defraud his creditors or frustrate the enforcement of a
judgment that might be rendered in plaintiff s favor, has assigned, disposed of,
encumbered or secreted property, or removed itfrom the state or is about to do any of
these acts; or
4. the action is brought by the victim or the representative of the victim of a crime, as
defined in subdivision six of section six hundred twenty-one-oneof the executive law ,
against the person or the legal representative or assignee of the person convicted of
committing such crime and seeks to recover damages sustained as a result of such crime
pursuant to section six hundred thirty-two-a of the executive law ; or
5. the cause of action is based on a judgment, decree or order of a court of the United
States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state, or on a
53."
judgment which qualifies for recognition under the provisions of article
In light of the foregoing, CDC has failed to establish that itis entitled to any such
relief whether itbe an attachment or a TRO. Thank you for your continued thoughtful
consideration in this regard.
Very truly yours,
Mark E. Constantine, Esq.
cc: John Blumenstock, Esq.
Via efile
McCullough, Goldberger and Staudt, LLP
Via e-mail
Document Filed Date
February 21, 2018
Case Filing Date
February 05, 2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
MARK E. CONSTANTINE, ESQ. 106 NORTH BROADWAY IRVINGTON, NEW YORK 10533 PHONE (914) 631-0410 FAX (914) 631-0440 February 21, 2018 VIA E-FILE Supreme Court of the State of New York Westchester County 111 Martin Luther King Jr, Boulevard White Plains, New York 10601 Attn..: Hon. Lawrence Ecker, JSC and Hon. Nicholas Colabella, JSC Re: CDC v. AIP, et al, Index No.: 51573-2015 Application for Order of Attachment and Order to Show Cause Your Honours: Greetings. Please be reminded that the undersigned is the attorney of record for AIP in the above referenced matter. I am writing to provide more particular opposition to CDC's order to show cause seeking a TRO to prevent the sale of the building noticed for this afternoon at 330 pm and CDC's purported filing for an ex parte order of attachment presumably pursuant to section 6201 of the CPLR. The fulltext of section 6201 of the CPLR is reproduced below and, although the undersigned has yet to see either one of CDC's applications, itis respectfully submitted that CDC cannot establish any of the prerequisites enumerated in the statute such that they do not qualify for the extraordinary relief they seek. "New York Consolidated Civil Practim I2w and Rules - CVP for attachment Laws, § 6201. Grounds ........... .... .......... .... ....................... .... ........... . ......................... ..... ..... ........... ................ An order of attachment may be granted in any action, except a matrimonial action, where the plaintiff has demanded and would be entitled, in whole or in part, or in the alternative, to a money judgment against one or more defendants, when: 1. the defendant is a nondomiciliary residing without the state, or is a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in the state; or 2. the defendant resides or is domiciled in the state and cannot be personally served despite diligent efforts to do so; or 3. the defendant, with intent to defraud his creditors or frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in plaintiff s favor, has assigned, disposed of, encumbered or secreted property, or removed itfrom the state or is about to do any of these acts; or 4. the action is brought by the victim or the representative of the victim of a crime, as defined in subdivision six of section six hundred twenty-one-oneof the executive law , against the person or the legal representative or assignee of the person convicted of committing such crime and seeks to recover damages sustained as a result of such crime pursuant to section six hundred thirty-two-a of the executive law ; or 5. the cause of action is based on a judgment, decree or order of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state, or on a 53." judgment which qualifies for recognition under the provisions of article In light of the foregoing, CDC has failed to establish that itis entitled to any such relief whether itbe an attachment or a TRO. Thank you for your continued thoughtful consideration in this regard. Very truly yours, Mark E. Constantine, Esq. cc: John Blumenstock, Esq. Via efile McCullough, Goldberger and Staudt, LLP Via e-mail