RAZE CONTRACTING, INC. v. COLOMBO

Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed, with costs.

On a motion to vacate an order of attachment, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the grounds for the attachment, the need to continue the levy, and the probability of success on the merits ( see CPLR 6223 [b]). Here, the Supreme Court properly vacated the order of attachment on the ground that the plaintiff failed to meet those requirements ( see Rothman v. Rogers, 221 AD2d 330; Benedict v. Browne, 289 AD2d 433).

The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.