From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ocino v. Fromm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 2000
276 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued September 11, 2000.

October 10, 2000.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5227 for a judgment directing the turnover of certain shares of stock held in escrow, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Arniotes, J.), dated January 20, 2000, which denied the motion of the intervenors James Mitchell, Fay Mitchell, and B J General Contractors, Inc., for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 5240, limiting the petitioner's right to execute against the subject shares of stock.

Steckler, Gutman, Morrissey Murray, New York, N.Y. (John M. Murray of counsel), for intervenor-appellants.

Errol Blank, West Nyack, N.Y., for petitioner-respondent.

Before: GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 5240 empowers a court with broad discretionary authority to control and regulate procedures to enforce a judgment to prevent "'unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice to any person or the courts'" (Guardian Loan Co. v. Early, 47 N.Y.2d 515, 519, quoting Third Preliminary Report of the Advisory Comm on Practice and Procedure, 1959, at 31 4; Yeshiva Tifferes Torah v. Kesher Intl. Trading Corp., 246 A.D.2d 538; Paz v. Long Is. R.R., 241 A.D.2d 486). The appellants failed to demonstrate their entitlement to relief under this provision. The petitioner is the assignee of a judgment against, among others, the appellants, arising from their default on a line of credit. The appellant James Mitchell executed a guarantee therefor. He also executed an indemnification agreement in favor of a co-guarantor and fellow judgment debtor, pursuant to which Mitchell pledged the subject shares of stock as security. Mitchell also acknowledged "responcibility" (sic) for the underlying obligation. The petitioner, as assignee of the judgment, is entitled to seek satisfaction thereof by executing on the shares of stock.


Summaries of

Matter of Ocino v. Fromm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 10, 2000
276 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Ocino v. Fromm

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF OCINO, INC., PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. DAVID H. FROMM, ET…

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

Date published: Oct 10, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 860

Citing Cases

Rondack Constr. Servs. v. Kaatsbaan Inter. Dance

hether Acting Supreme Court Justice Dolan abused his discretion in upholding the sheriff's sale. ( Fiore v…

Lincoln Fin. Servs. v. Miceli

Nevertheless, CPLR § 5240 "is an omnibus section empowering the court to exercise broad powers over the use…