Guggenheim v. Guggenheim, 48 N.Y.2d 615 (1979)

Under CPLR 2701, a court has the discretion to require a party seeking the delivery of personal property held by another to post a bond, especially when special circumstances warrant such security.

Summary

This case addresses the court’s discretion under CPLR 2701 to require a party seeking the return of personal property to post a bond. The plaintiff sought the return of artwork held by the defendants, and the lower courts required him to post a bond. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the lower courts did not abuse their discretion. The court reasoned that CPLR 2701 authorizes the court to order the delivery of personal property with such security as the court directs when special circumstances exist. The court also rejected the argument that the bond requirement constituted a de facto attachment violating due process.

Facts

The plaintiff sought to compel the defendants to return artwork held by them. The artwork was held in conjunction with a contractual relationship that was in dispute between the parties. The lower court, finding special circumstances, required the plaintiff to post a bond to secure the delivery of the property.

Procedural History

The plaintiff appealed the lower court’s decision requiring him to post a bond. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the lower courts abused their discretion in requiring the plaintiff to post a bond pursuant to CPLR 2701, given the facts of the case.
2. Whether the requirement of a bond transforms the court’s action into a de facto attachment, thereby violating the plaintiff’s due process rights.

Holding

1. Yes, because the court found that special circumstances existed, which is a factor that allows a court to exercise its discretion.
2. No, because the bond afforded the defendants nothing more than something analogous to a possessory lien, and it was not the lien itself, but the subsequent ex parte sale executed pursuant to that lien which violated the requirements of due process.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found no abuse of discretion by the lower courts in requiring the plaintiff to post a bond under CPLR 2701. CPLR 2701 allows a court to order personal property delivered to a party with security as the court directs if, among other reasons, “a party has such property in his possession, custody or control and it belongs or is due another party, where special circumstances make it desirable that payment or delivery to such other party should be withheld”. Since the lower courts found “special circumstances” existed, the Court of Appeals deferred to their discretion.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s argument that the bond requirement was a de facto attachment. It reasoned that “The greatest right this bond could be construed to afford to the defendants would be something analogous to a possessory lien.” Citing Sharrock v Dell Buick-Cadillac, 45 NY2d 152, the court noted that due process violations occur when an ex parte sale is executed pursuant to that lien, not the lien itself. The court concluded that the plaintiff received adequate due process during the court’s consideration of his motion under CPLR 2701.