made to the text of subdivision (a), and subdivision (b) was added. 2 . To the extent that a contrary result was reached by the court in Kend v. Chroma-Glo, Inc., 51 F.R.D. 547 (D.Minn.1970), aff’d, 478 F.2d 198 (8th Cir. 1973), this Court disagrees. The Kend decision not to vacate the attachment was a function of that court’s determination that the defendant bore the burden of showing that the attachment was unnecessary to plaintiff’s security. The court did not think it significant that the attachment was originally for jurisdictional purposes alone. By contrast, this Court, as did the Walker court, considers it significant that security for the payment of a judgment was not asserted as a basis for the attachment prior to this m .2d 352, 361, 369 N.Y. S.2d 460, 468 (2d Dep’t 1975) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Zenith Bathing Pavilion v. Fair Oaks
holding that when an appeal is properly taken from an underlying judgment the court of appeals has discretion to review a subsequent order denying a motion to vacate holding that order denying motion to vacate restitution order should be reversed where trial judge failed to inform defendant of right to appeal recognizing the flexibility of the burden stating as we understand this section broad discretion is given to a judge to vacate an attachment order when evidence though not lacking altogether may seem too weak or uncertain to justify the remedy      recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge holding that the party seeking to vacate the award has the burden of providing the court with the evidence to support its arguments