210 East 86th Street Corp. v. Delgado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

210 East 86th Street Corp. v. Delgado

186 A.D.2d 430

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 15, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 430 (210 East 86th Street Corp. v. Delgado) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

210 East 86th Street Corp. v. Delgado, 186 A.D.2d 430 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about June 24, 1991, which granted the motion of defendant-respondent Ruben Delgado for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him and severed the remaining actions, and order of the same court and Justice entered on or about November 19, 1991, denying plaintiffs motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff obtained a judgment against a professional corporation of which defendant-respondent was a principal, and commenced this action to compel the individual defendant-respondent to satisfy that judgment. While both parties speak in terms of piercing the corporate veil, the action is more properly characterized as one to set aside an allegedly fraudulent conveyance. For the reason that plaintiff had failed to come forward with evidence of deception intentionally practiced to frustrate the legal rights of another (Southern Indus, v Jeremias, 66 AD2d 178, 181), summary judgment was properly granted.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about June 24, 1991, which granted the motion of defendant-respondent Ruben Delgado for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him and severed the remaining actions, and order of the same court and Justice entered on or about November 19, 1991, denying plaintiffs motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff obtained a judgment against a professional corporation of which defendant-respondent was a principal, and commenced this action to compel the individual defendant-respondent to satisfy that judgment. While both parties speak in terms of piercing the corporate veil, the action is more properly characterized as one to set aside an allegedly fraudulent conveyance. For the reason that plaintiff had failed to come forward with evidence of deception intentionally practiced to frustrate the legal rights of another (Southern Indus, v Jeremias, 66 AD2d 178, 181), summary judgment was properly granted.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/210-east-86th-street-corp-v-delgado-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack