Cargill Fin. Servs. Intl., Inc. v Bank Fin. & Credit Ltd., 2009 NY Slip Op 07688 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)
While plaintiff's evidence established a basis for quasi in rem
jurisdiction, in that defendant, a Ukranian bank, utilized its New York
correspondent accounts to receive funds and make interest payments
pursuant to the terms of the parties' loan agreements and associated
letters of credit (see generally Banco Ambrosiano v Artoc Bank & Trust,
62 NY2d 65 ), plaintiff failed in its burden to show the extent,
if any, that defendant had an attachable ownership interest in the
subject correspondent accounts (see e.g. Sigmoil Resources v Pan Ocean Oil Corp. (Nigeria), 234 AD2d 103 , lv dismissed 89 NY2d 1030 ). As [*2]such, the court properly exercised its discretion to deny plaintiff's attachment application (see J.V.W. Inv. Ltd. v Kelleher, 41 AD3d 233 ).
The bold is mine.