Case Name: KROTOSKY v. KROTOSKY
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-11-12
Citations: 155 N.Y.S. 625
Docket Number: No. 7895
Parties: KROTOSKY v. KROTOSKY.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 155
Pages: 625–630

Head Matter:
KROTOSKY v. KROTOSKY.
(No. 7895.)
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
November 12, 1915.)
Attachment <S=»á7—Evidence—Stoticiency.
Where defendant is a resident of the state, has no other debts, and is in business in the state, Ms property should not be tied up by attachment pending an action, on the ground that he is about to make some disposition of his property for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, unless there is substantial evidence that he is about to do so.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Attachment, Cent. Dig. §§ 120, 861-876; Dec. Dig. <S=>47.]
Dowling, J., dissenting.
<g=s>For other cases see sL-ae topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Grace Krotosky against Philip Krotosky, also known as Philip Kay and Philip K. Dalton. Prom an order denying his motion to vacate an attachment, which order was made on a rehearing of the motion, defendant appeals. Reversed, and motion granted.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, SCOTT, and DOWLING, JJ.
Harvey J. Cohen, of New York City (Herman Joseph, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Julius J. Popper, of New York City, for respondent.

Opinion:
INGRAHAM, P. J.
A warrant of attachment in this action was granted on the ground that the defendant had assigned, disposed of, and secreted his property, or was about to assign, dispose of, or secrete his property, with intent to defraud his creditors. Assuming that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case to justify the issue of a warrant of attachment in the first instance, the facts that would justify this conclusion have been fully met and answered by the defendant's affidavits, and on the whole case there seems to be a lack of evidence to justify a finding that the defendant either has transferred or assigned, or -is about to transfer or assign, his property to avoid his creditors. The defendant is a resident of this state, and trying up all of his property to await the determination of this action is not justified, unless there is substantial evidence that the defendant is about to make some disposition of his property for the purpose of defrauding his creditors. There is no evidence that he has other debts, his business is here, and nothing that he has done will justify the inference that he is about to make such a disposition of his property as will justify an attachment.
Tor these reasons, I think the order appealed from should be reversed, and motion to vacate the attachment granted, under the circumstances, without costs.
CLARKE and SCOTT, JJ., concur. DOWLING, J., dissents.