Opinion
723 113227/09.
03-24-2016
Michael I. KNOPF, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Michael Hayden SANFORD, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Berry Law PLLC, New York (Eric W. Berry of counsel), and Gary Greenberg, New York, for appellants. Dechert, LLP, New York (James M. McGuire of counsel), for respondents.
Berry Law PLLC, New York (Eric W. Berry of counsel), and Gary Greenberg, New York, for appellants.
Dechert, LLP, New York (James M. McGuire of counsel), for respondents.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered July 23, 2015, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs' motion to direct the Clerk to enter judgment on certain claims, or in the alternative for a prejudgment attachment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of 1) remanding the matter to the motion court for a hearing on whether to grant a prejudgment attachment, and 2) directing that, pending the determination after a hearing, defendant Pursuit Holdings, LLC is prohibited from transferring, or further diminishing, impairing or encumbering the properties it acquired with real estate loans from plaintiffs, including but not limited to the property located at 10 Bedford St., New York, New York, as well as any proceeds derived from the sale of such properties prior to the date of this order, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The motion court correctly determined that a damages inquest was required. However, the motion court should have held a hearing on plaintiffs' application for an attachment under CPLR 6201(3). Plaintiffs are correct that Pursuit's ex post facto qualification to do business in the state did not per se defeat its motion for an attachment under CPLR 6201(1) (see Elton Leather Corp. v. First Gen. Resources Co., 138 A.D.2d 132, 135–136, 529 N.Y.S.2d 769 1st Dept.1988 ). In the proceedings below, there was enough evidence of defendants' attempts to encumber assets to warrant a hearing as to whether an attachment should be granted. (see VisionChina Media, Inc. v. Shareholder Representative Servs., LLC, 109 A.D.3d 49, 967 N.Y.S.2d 338 1st Dept.2013 ).
We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, RICHTER, GISCHE, GESMER, JJ., concur.