Morning Glory Media v. Enright
New York Supreme Court
100 Misc. 2d 872, 420 N.Y.S.2d 176 (1979)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Morning Glory Media, Inc. (Morning Glory) (plaintiff) acquired a typesetting machine with the help of Thomas Enright, Gladys Fausette, and Gene Fausette (defendants) and others (collectively, guarantors), who guaranteed or provided collateral for the financing for the machine’s purchase. The parties disputed where the machine should be located, leading Morning Glory and related individuals (plaintiffs) to commence a replevin suit, in connection with which Morning Glory obtained an order under Article 71 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), which authorized the sheriff to seize the machine without notice to the guarantors. Immediately after the seizure, Morning Glory moved to confirm the seizure order. The guarantors responded that (1) a seizure order without notice violated their constitutional due-process rights pursuant to a series of decisions by the United States Supreme Court and (2) the guarantors, not Morning Glory, had a superior possessory interest in the machine.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mastrella, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.