On January 28, 2026, the Second Department issued a decision in SAMCOM 48 (DE), LLC v. 37-10 114th St. ML Funding, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op. 00392, upholding an attachment requiring the proceeds from a real estate sale to be held in escrow, explaining:
In October 2021, SAMCOM, Chatus, Chen, and Chau commenced this action against the defendant. The amended complaint, inter alia, alleged that pursuant to UCC 9-625(b) and 9-615(f), the defendant’s foreclosure sale of the collateral was not conducted in a commercially reasonable manner and that the plaintiffs were entitled to surplus proceeds from the sale of the collateral.
On December 27, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for an order of attachment, seeking to restrain and enjoin the net proceeds from the defendant’s expected sale of the property. On December 28, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order directing that, pending further order of the court, the net proceeds from the sale of the property were to be deposited into an escrow account of the defendant’s attorneys. Shortly thereafter, the defendant sold the property for the sum of $50 million.
In an order entered July 24, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for an order of attachment against the net proceeds from the sale of the property. In an order entered September 11, 2023, the court granted the same relief to the plaintiffs, directed that the net proceeds from the sale of the property be deposited into an escrow account of the defendant’s counsel, and directed the plaintiffs to post an undertaking in the amount of $1,000,000. The defendant appeals.
Attachment is a provisional remedy designed to secure a debt by preliminary levy upon the property of the debtor to conserve it for eventual execution, and the courts have strictly construed the attachment statute in favor of those against whom it may be employed. Pursuant to CPLR 6201(3), an order of attachment may be granted where the defendant, with intent to defraud his [or her creditors or frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in plaintiff’s favor, has assigned, disposed of, encumbered or secreted property, or removed it from the state or is about to do any of these acts. In addition, a plaintiff must also demonstrate a probability of success on the merits .
Here, the plaintiffs established conduct that satisfied the requirements of CPLR 6201(3) and sufficiently demonstrated a probability of success on the merits. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for an order of attachment against the net proceeds of the sale of the property.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).