From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carlos Franco Associates, Inc. v. Seaboard Drug, Inc.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Dec 20, 1956
4 Misc. 2d 794 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1956)

Opinion

December 20, 1956

Franklin M. Desser for plaintiff.

Milton A. Bass for Seaboard Drug Company, Inc., defendant.


Motion to increase plaintiff's undertaking filed in support of a warrant of attachment is denied. Defendant fails to set forth any facts to show that the undertaking already filed will not be sufficient for its purpose. The mere conclusory statement that the attachment has caused damage to defendant's business reputation does not justify such relief. That is much too abstract a premise upon which to claim additional security in the absence of supporting facts. The damages against which defendant is entitled to protection by the undertaking on an attachment, within the purview of section 907 of the Civil Practice Act, are those which materially and proximately result from the attachment ( Plessner v. Continental Cas. Co., 82 N.Y.S.2d 540, 544). Defendant makes no showing that the alleged damage claimed falls within that category.


Summaries of

Carlos Franco Associates, Inc. v. Seaboard Drug, Inc.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Dec 20, 1956
4 Misc. 2d 794 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1956)
Case details for

Carlos Franco Associates, Inc. v. Seaboard Drug, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CARLOS FRANCO ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, v. SEABOARD DRUG COMPANY, INC.…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County

Date published: Dec 20, 1956

Citations

4 Misc. 2d 794 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1956)
162 N.Y.S.2d 380

Citing Cases

Worldwide Carriers, Ltd. v. Aris Steamship Co.

In the absence of a sufficient showing, the motion to increase plaintiff's undertaking is denied. Carlos…

Moquinon, Ltd. v. Gliklad

The amount of the undertaking must be adequate to protect a defendant's interest during the pendency of the…