Trans Country Storage, Inc. v. Badler & Zito, 32 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
Trans Country Storage, Inc. v. Badler & Zito, 32 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Freedman v. Hason (nyappdiv, 2017-11-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Freedman v. Hason
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Where a debtor places funds in escrow for the payment of specific creditors, as long as those funds remain subject to the debtor’s “present or future control,” those funds are subject to claims brought by other creditors who know about the escrow funds (Potter v MacLean, 75 AD3d 686, 687 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Koroleski v Badler, 32 AD2d 810, 811 [1969]).
discussed Cited "see" Potter v. MacLean
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
Such funds, even if deposited in an escrow account, may be attached as long as they are subject to the judgment debtor’s “present or future control,” or are required to be returned to the judgment debtor if not used to pay for services rendered (Gala Enters., Inc. v Hewlett Packard Co., 970 F Supp at 217 ; see Koroleski v Badler, 32 AD2d 810, 811 [1969]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Grossman v. Fieland
N.Y. App. Div. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
Plaintiff never agreed to hold any sum put in his possession in escrow, and he had the right to seek to enforce the judgment against the property put in his possession by defendant (CPLR 5201, subd [b]; see, also, Koroleski v Badler, 32 AD2d 810 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Trans Country Storage, Inc.
v.
Badler & Zito
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 16, 1969.
32 A.D.2d 810
Published

In a proceeding by a judgment creditor to direct third parties to turn over money which is the property of or owed to the judgment debtor, pursuant to CPLR 5225 and 5227, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 9, 1969, which (1) granted the third parties’ motion to vacate a prior order of said court, dated August 23, 1968, granting the application, and (2) denied the application. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, .with $20 costs and disbursements ; third parties’ motion denied; and original determination, granting the application, adhered to. (See Koroleski v. Badler, 32 A D 2d 810.) Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.