Glazer & Gottlieb v. Nachman, 234 A.D.2d 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Glazer & Gottlieb v. Nachman, 234 A.D.2d 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gonzalez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 299 F. Supp. 2d 188 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
How cited ↗
Cited for
650 N.Y.S.2d at 719 summary judgment held improper where plaintiff slipped on soap powder in apartment building stairwell and where evidence showed recurring problem of spilled soap powder in stairwell caused by tenants moving between floors to find available washing machines1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Gonzalez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 299 F. Supp. 2d 188 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).published
    (summary judgment held improper where plaintiff slipped on soap powder in apartment building stairwell and where evidence showed recurring problem of spilled soap powder in stairwell caused by tenants moving between floo…)
At page 105 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Ne. United Corp. v. Lewis, 137 A.D.3d 1387 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).published
    Attachment is a drastic remedy, and “CPLR 6201 is strictly construed in favor of those against whom it may be employed” (Grafstein v Schwartz, 100 AD3d 699, 699 [2012]; see Glazer & Gottlieb v Nachman, 234 AD2d 105, 105 [1996]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Glazer & Gottlieb
v.
Penelope S. Nachman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 12, 1996.
Published opinion
234 A.D.2d 105
1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12432
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about December 21, 1995, which, in this action for legal fees, denied plaintiff law firm’s motion for a prejudgment order of attachment against an escrow fund held by defendant Bornstein for the benefit of defendant Nachman in a matrimonial action during which plaintiff represented Nachman, unanimously affirmed, without costs. However, we direct that the escrow fund remain intact.

Attachment is considered a harsh remedy and the statute is strictly construed in favor of those against whom it may be employed (First Natl. Bank v Highland Hardwoods, 98 AD2d 924, 926, citing Siegel v Northern Blvd. & 80th St. Corp., 31 AD2d 182, 183). Under the instant circumstances, denial of the application for an attachment was a sound exercise of discretion by the IAS Court (see, Zenith Bathing Pavilion v Fair Oaks S. S. Corp., 240 NY 307, 312-313). We note that the proceeding has been transferred to Justice Silbermann for a resolution of the legal fee issue. Pending the determination of legal fees, we direct that the escrowed funds remain in escrow.

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.