Opinion
February 26, 1981
Appeal from the Chautauqua Supreme Court.
Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.
Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order issued pursuant to CPLR 5240 staying enforcement of a judgment in the amount of $470,581.55 recovered for nonpayment of a note given by defendants in connection with a loan for an apartment project. The papers in support of the application for the stay contain no evidence that the defendants would suffer unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice if the stay were not granted (see N.Y. Legis Doc, 1959, No. 17, p 314; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, CPLR 5240:1, p 451). Special Term, however, in its memorandum decision recited that the plaintiff had issued an execution to the Sheriff against "Mr. Bailey's interest in his law partnership", a fact which, if true, would warrant a limited stay of enforcement as to that asset (see Moskin v. Midland Bank Trust Co., 96 Misc.2d 600). Accordingly, the order is modified to deny the application except as to the stay of enforcement of the judgment against any interest of defendant Arthur N. Bailey in his law practice or law partnership.