From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commercial Credit Development Corp. v. Bailey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 26, 1981
80 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

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.


Summaries of

Commercial Credit Development Corp. v. Bailey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 26, 1981
80 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Commercial Credit Development Corp. v. Bailey

Case Details

Full title:COMMERCIAL CREDIT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. ARTHUR N. BAILEY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 26, 1981

Citations

80 A.D.2d 748 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

AMEV Capital Corp. v. Kirk

However, although the appellant's wife is a defendant in the action to set aside the fraudulent conveyance,…

In re Pandeff

" A stay of enforcement must be supported by a showing that the respondent would suffer "unreasonable…