Siroty v. Nelson

I cannot agree with the majority’s holding that Dry Dock is liable for the defalcations of Nelson. In my view, the order entered by Supreme Court on Dry Dock’s CPLR 1006 (f) application did not in fact, nor did it purport to, impose any duty on Dry Dock to assure that the funds comprising the stake be deposited in an interest-bearing account subject to the further order or judgment of the court. Rather, these directives imposed conditions on Richard Nelson, the attorney to whom Dry Dock was directed to pay the funds and whose defalcation caused the loss of the funds. Because I see no…