Cyngiel v. Krigsman

1 Citing case

  1. Salazar v. Meloul

    2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 30100 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2025)

    However, plaintiff failed to establish that CPLR § 6201(3) applies. Plaintiff himself confirms that "the property has not been conveyed" (NYSCEF Doc No 11, ¶ 27, 31, 33) and he does not provide any evidence that Gabriel is likely to assign, dispose of, encumber, or secret the properties (Cyngiel v Krigsman, 192 A.D.3d 762, 763 [2nd Dept 2021] ["Affidavits containing allegations raising a mere suspicion of an intent to defraud are insufficient. It must appear that such fraudulent intent really existed in the defendant's mind."