Case Name: RIBAK et al. v. WORHAFTIG
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-11-03
Citations: 155 N.Y.S. 408
Docket Number: 
Parties: RIBAK et al. v. WORHAFTIG.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 155
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
RIBAK et al. v. WORHAFTIG.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
November 3, 1915.)
Attachment <§=47—Grounds—Fraud.
Attachment will not be issued, upon the ground that defendant is about to dispose of his property with intent to defraud his creditors, utiless evidence sufficient to establish the fraud is presented.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Attachment, Cent. Dig. §§ 120, 861-876; Dec. Dig. <§=47.]
Bijur, X, dissenting.
<§=For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.
Action by Joseph Ribak and another against Herman Worhaftig, doing business as Metropolitan Chandelier Company. From an order granting a motion to vacate an attachment, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Argued October term, 1915, before BIJUR, PAGE, and SHEARN, JJ.
Morrison & Schiff, of New York City (Jacob R. Schiff, of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Henry Silverman, of New York City, for respondent.

Opinion:
SHEARN, J.
The remedy by attachment is a harsh one, and before one's business may be seized by the sheriff upon an allegation of fraud there must be evidence submitted to the court sufficient to establish the fraud. The papers upon which the vacated attachment was granted merely state why plaintiffs suspect the defendant of having disposed of his property with intent to defraud his creditors. They contain no evidence upon which fraud may be fairly inferred, and the very grounds of plaintiffs' suspicion are consistent with honest business dealings.
Order affirmed, with $10 costs.
PAGE, J., concurs. BIJUR, J., dissents.