X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=46927 Judge Koeltl PLAINTIFF APPLIED, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 and Article 62 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, for an order of attachment against defendants’ assets after defendants sold real property worth approximately $1.3 million. None of the proceeds of these sales went to defendants and at least $300,000 was transferred to an offshore company. Plaintiff argued that the circumstances of the transactions establish that defendants intend to frustrate enforcement of any judgment against them, and that plaintiff is therefore entitled to an attachment against the remainder of defendants’ assets. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for an attachment, finding that it showed that it is likely to succeed on its alter ego and reverse veil-piercing claims. The court added that plaintiff also showed that defendants disposed of the properties with actual intent to frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in plaintiff’s favor.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.