Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 2, 2025

1410 Lexington Avenue LLC v. Michele Iuliano and Anisa Iuliano

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:25-cv-06179
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In 1410 Lexington Avenue LLC v. Michele Iuliano, Judge Failla granted an order attaching defendants’ property to secure a $199,233 claim.

Who this affects

1410 Lexington Avenue LLC and defendants Michele Iuliano and Anisa Iuliano; the order also binds persons possessing or receiving notice of the defendants’ attached property or debts.

What happened

In 1410 Lexington Avenue LLC v. Michele Iuliano, 1410 Lexington Avenue LLC asked the court to attach property belonging to Michele Iuliano and Anisa Iuliano. The company claimed they failed to pay under an unconditional promise to guarantee payment.

The court found that the company appeared to have a valid claim for at least $199,233, that it was likely to succeed, and that the defendants lived outside New York State. The court also noted that the defendants had no counterclaims for damages against the company.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the attachment order for $199,233. The order covers specified debts and property, restricts transfers affecting that property, requires a $5,000 undertaking by the company, and requires each defendant to provide a required statement within five days after service.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
1410 Lexington Avenue LLC v. Michele Iuliano and Anisa Iuliano · No. 1:25-cv-06179
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Dec. 2, 2025

Background

1410 Lexington Avenue LLC applied under Article 62 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules for an order attaching assets belonging to Michele Iuliano and Anisa Iuliano. The application relied on a memorandum of law, an attorney’s affirmation, an affidavit, exhibits, earlier submissions, and statements made during a telephone argument.

The court stated that the plaintiff appeared to have a valid and legally recognizable claim for a money judgment against the defendants jointly and individually for at least $199,233. The claim was based on the defendants’ alleged failure to pay under an absolute, unconditional, and irrevocable guaranty. The court also found that success on the claim was probable, that the defendants were non-domiciliaries residing outside New York, and that they had no counterclaims for damages against the plaintiff.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiff’s application for an order of attachment. The attachment is effective, unless vacated earlier, through the entry of an execution or turnover order after a judgment for the plaintiff. The amount secured is $199,233.

The order attaches the defendants’ property wherever located, including past-due or future debts and tangible or intangible property that can be assigned or transferred, subject to the order’s terms. It also directs the sheriff to attach other property evidenced by written instruments that is located in New York before final judgment.

The plaintiff’s undertaking was set at $5,000. An undertaking is a security that may be used to pay up to that amount for legal costs and damages caused by the attachment, and for allowable sheriff’s fees, if the defendants prevail or the plaintiff is found not entitled to the attachment. Within five days after service of the order, each defendant must serve the required statement through the specified electronic and email methods. Until further order, the defendants and other persons covered by the order may not sell, assign, transfer, pay over, dispose of, or otherwise affect the value of the attached property or debts. The order does not restrain property beyond the amount needed to secure $199,233. Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.