SHISGAL v. BROWN

Plaintiffs, having failed sufficiently to demonstrate that defendants had disposed of or secreted assets with intent to defraud their creditors, were not entitled to an order of attachment. Affidavits raising mere suspicions of an intent to defraud are not a sufficient ground for the sought relief ( see Rosenthal v. Rochester Button Co., Inc., 148 A.D.2d 375, 376). The denial of the relief was also proper in light of plaintiffs' failure to show a probability of success on the merits of their claims ( see Societe Generale Alsacienne de Banque, Zurich v. Felmingdon Dev. Corp., 118 A.D.2d 769, 773).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.