From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DXB Video Tapes, Inc. v. Halay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 13, 1997
239 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 13, 1997


Defendants admit that they owe plaintiff $98,234.99 for goods sold and delivered, and their only claimed defenses are either raised for the first time on appeal, or without evidentiary support. Accordingly, summary judgment should have been granted to plaintiff ( see, City of New York v. Stack, 178 A.D.2d 355, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 753). The motion court properly denied plaintiff's motion for an order of attachment upon property that has already been seized pursuant to a search warrant issued in connection with a criminal case against defendants, and is currently in the custody either of the issuing court or the New York County District Attorney's Office. Should plaintiff desire to seek enforcement of the judgment, it may proceed before the court that issued the search warrant ( see, CPL 690.55). We decline to reach any other issues pertaining to the motion for an order of attachment.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

DXB Video Tapes, Inc. v. Halay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 13, 1997
239 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

DXB Video Tapes, Inc. v. Halay

Case Details

Full title:DXB VIDEO TAPES, INC., Appellant, v. JOSHUA HALAY, Also Known as JOSHUA…

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

Date published: May 13, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
657 N.Y.S.2d 179

Citing Cases

LM Bus. Assocs., Inc. v. State

In other words, "property seized pursuant to a search warrant remains in the control of the issuing judge"…