The New York Appellate Division has ruled in favor of Rima Krigsman regarding a wrongful attachment of her funds in the case of Cyngiel v. Krigsman. The court's decision, issued on June 24, 2026, reverses a previous order from the Supreme Court that denied Krigsman's request for costs and damages related to the attachment. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the liability of plaintiffs in cases of wrongful attachment.
The case began when Mordechai Cyngiel, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Krigsman, among others, seeking an accounting of rent money he alleged was improperly collected on properties they co-owned. The dispute escalated when Cyngiel sought an order of attachment against Krigsman’s funds, which were connected to a settlement from an unrelated legal malpractice case. This led to the court initially granting the attachment in January 2019.
However, in a subsequent ruling on March 10, 2021, the Appellate Division reversed the previous order, determining that Cyngiel had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the attachment. The court stated that “the plaintiff made no showing of any conduct that would satisfy the requirements of CPLR 6201(3).” This ruling highlighted the importance of adhering to legal standards when seeking to attach a defendant's property.
Following the reversal, Krigsman filed a motion under CPLR 6212(e) for an award of costs and damages, claiming $31,102.48 due to the wrongful attachment. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion in July 2022, suggesting that Krigsman should wait until specific discovery related to the case was completed.
However, the Appellate Division found that Krigsman had adequately demonstrated her entitlement to damages resulting from the wrongful attachment. The court ruled that “the plaintiff is strictly liable for all damages resulting from a wrongful attachment, without regard to fault.” This ruling emphasizes that plaintiffs who improperly attach a defendant's property must bear the financial consequences of their actions.
The court's decision also pointed out that Krigsman had shown that an order of attachment had been issued against her funds amounting to $173,827.50. The ruling confirmed that since the plaintiff had been found not entitled to the attachment, Krigsman was rightfully owed damages.
This case serves as a reminder of the legal responsibilities that come with seeking property attachments. The ruling reinforces the principle that plaintiffs must have a valid basis for such actions, and failure to do so can result in financial liability for damages incurred by the defendant.
Looking forward, this ruling may impact similar cases involving wrongful attachments in New York. It clarifies the standards that courts will apply when determining liability for damages resulting from such actions. This case could set a precedent for future disputes over wrongful attachments, ensuring that plaintiffs are held accountable for their requests.
As for what’s next, while the ruling in Cyngiel v. Krigsman is significant, it is unclear if there will be any further appeals or related cases pending at this time. The court's decision stands as a clear directive on the importance of proper legal procedures in attachment cases.