Case Name: Bank of Smithtown, Appellant, v. Cartago Investment & Trading, S. A., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1990-06-25
Citations: 162 A.D.2d 652
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bank of Smithtown, Appellant, v Cartago Investment & Trading, S. A., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 162
Pages: 652–652

Head Matter:
(June 25, 1990)
Bank of Smithtown, Appellant, v Cartago Investment & Trading, S. A., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Opinion:
In an action to recover on a promissory note and for money had and received, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered October 4, 1988, as, upon granting the plaintiff's motion to renew, adhered to its original determination vacating a prior order of attachment of the same court dated March 4, 1988.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and, upon renewal, the order of attachment is reinstated.
We find that the new evidence submitted by the plaintiff bank establishes that, under the circumstances, the requested attachment is proper (see, CPLR 6201 [3]). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.