Cyngiel v Krigsman
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Prejudgment attachment and liability for wrongful attachment in a real-property accounting dispute.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied Rima Krigsman's motion under CPLR 6212(e) [making a plaintiff liable for all costs and damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, if it is finally decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to an attachment] for costs and damages caused by wrongful attachment, with leave to renew after issue-specific discovery.
The Appellate Division reversed the order denying Krigsman's motion and granted her motion for an award of costs and damages caused by wrongful attachment.
Because the prior appellate decision had already determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to an attachment under CPLR 6201(3) [requiring a showing of qualifying conduct to justify attachment], the plaintiff was strictly liable for damages resulting from the wrongful attachment, and he failed to show any adequate basis for additional discovery.
Background
The plaintiff commenced an action seeking, among other relief, an accounting of rent allegedly collected by the defendants from two parcels owned in common and a third parcel owned solely by the plaintiff. The plaintiff later obtained an order of attachment against funds received by defendant Rima Krigsman from the settlement of an unrelated legal malpractice action. The attachment covered $173,827.50. In an earlier appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the order granting attachment, denied the plaintiff's motion for attachment, and vacated the order setting the attachment amount and bond, holding that the plaintiff made no showing satisfying CPLR 6201(3). Krigsman then moved for $31,102.48 in costs and damages for wrongful attachment under CPLR 6212(e).
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court denied Krigsman's CPLR 6212(e) motion, but did so with leave to renew after completion of issue-specific discovery related to the motion.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed on the law, with costs, and granted Krigsman's motion. It held that once it had been finally decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to the attachment, CPLR 6212(e) imposed strict liability for all costs and damages caused by the attachment, including reasonable attorney's fees. The court also rejected the plaintiff's request for issue-specific discovery because he failed to show an adequate basis for it.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that under CPLR 6212(e), a party who wrongfully obtains an attachment is strictly liable for resulting damages once it is finally determined that the attachment was unwarranted. The ruling also makes clear that a court should not delay such relief for speculative discovery where the entitlement to wrongful-attachment damages has already been established.
When a New York attachment is later vacated because the statutory requirements were never met, the attaching plaintiff faces strict liability for the defendant's resulting costs and damages, and cannot avoid that consequence by seeking unsupported additional discovery.