Goff v. Goff, 41 N.Y.2d 476 (1977)
A court should not vacate an attachment order unless the plaintiff’s claim is clearly baseless; the standard is not whether the plaintiff has definitively proven their case at the attachment stage.
Summary
This case concerns a dispute over a supplemental attachment in a case involving running accounts between plaintiff and defendant, and defendant and overseas licensees. The lower courts vacated the attachment, essentially granting summary judgment before discovery. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. Chief Judge Breitel, in dissent, argued that the reference was only to determine if the attachment was excessive, not to try the case on its merits, and that the plaintiff should not have to fully establish the case at the attachment stage. The dissent emphasized that the referee improperly granted summary judgment when disputed facts existed and pretrial discovery was lacking.
Facts
The underlying action involved disputes over running accounts between the plaintiff and the defendant, and between the defendant and its overseas licensees. The specifics of what was owed and what was received were sharply disputed. The plaintiff obtained a supplemental attachment, which the defendant challenged as excessive.
Procedural History
Special Term initially determined that trust funds were involved, pursuant to the agreements between the parties. A Special Referee was appointed to determine if the supplemental attachment was excessive. The referee recommended vacating the attachment, which Special Term confirmed. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order vacating the attachment. Chief Judge Breitel dissented, arguing the lower courts erred in treating the attachment hearing as a full trial on the merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower courts erred in vacating the supplemental attachment by applying an incorrect standard of review, effectively requiring the plaintiff to prove their case on the merits at the attachment stage, rather than determining if the claim was baseless and the attachment excessive.
Holding
No, because the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the lower court, effectively finding that the lower courts did not abuse their discretion in vacating the attachment. The majority did not issue a full opinion, but the dissent highlighted that the referee and lower courts improperly treated the attachment hearing as a summary judgment proceeding.
Court’s Reasoning
The majority opinion is a brief memorandum affirming the lower court’s decision. The dissent, however, provides insight into the legal reasoning. Chief Judge Breitel argued that the reference to the Special Referee was solely to determine whether the supplemental attachment was excessive, not to determine the merits of the underlying claims. He emphasized the preliminary nature of the determination under CPLR 6223, noting the lack of discovery and the complexity of the running accounts. The dissent criticized the referee for granting the equivalent of summary judgment in a case with disputed issues of fact and no pretrial discovery. Breitel stated, “An attachment will be of limited use as a provisional remedy if an attaching creditor must, on motion to vacate the attachment, summarily establish his case as if it had been fully tried and determined. That trial and determination was not the referee’s function. He was only to determine whether the supplementary attachment was excessive because the support for it was baseless and plaintiff’s claim must inevitably have failed.” The dissent contended that the correct standard is not whether the plaintiff has definitively proven their case, but whether the claim is “baseless.”