No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
1 566 F. Supp. 1440 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), appeal docketed, No. 83–7714 (2d Cir. Aug. 18, 1983).
2 The court declined to order defendant to return the funds it had previously withdrawn from its New York bank accounts, since there was no proof that defendant had deceived the court into vacating attachment of its assets.
3 376 U.S. 398 (1964). ‘
4 570 F. Supp. 870, 877 (quoting Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 428).
5 570 F. Supp. at 877.
6 353 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1965), cert, denied, 382 U.S. 1027 (1966).
7 570 F. Supp. at 877 (quoting Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Chemical Bank of New York, 658 F.2d 903, 908 (2d Cir. 1981)).
8 570 F. Supp. at 878.
9 The court cited the following factors as evidence that the property was located in New York: (1) the court had personal jurisdiction over the debtor based on defendant’s prior consent to jurisdiction under the loan agreement; (2) the defendant had agreed that New York law was applicable; (3) the debt repayments were to be made to a New York bank; and (4) defendant had substantial assets in New York City bank accounts at the time of the Costa Rican decrees. Id. at 881–82.
10 Id. at 882.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 884.
13 See, e.g., Menendez v. Saks & Co., 485 F.2d 1355 (2d Cir. 1973), summarized in 68 AJIL 325 (1974); United Bank, Ltd. v. Cosmic Int’l, Inc., 542 F.2d 868 (2d Cir. 1976), summarized in 71 AJIL 351 (1977); Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1981), summarized in 76 AJIL 385 (1982).