2365 Lorillard Corp. v. Krumszyn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

2365 Lorillard Corp. v. Krumszyn

25 A.D.3d 377, 806 N.Y.S.2d 870

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.3d 377 (2365 Lorillard Corp. v. Krumszyn) 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

2365 Lorillard Corp. v. Krumszyn, 25 A.D.3d 377, 806 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered October 21, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the motion of the action No. 2 defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The documentary evidence adduced by the action No. 2 defendants showed that plaintiff-appellant duly transferred the subject real property in November 1996 so as to avoid the judicial process brought against her by reason of the many serious violations issued against the premises as well as to escape imprisonment for criminal contempt. Plaintiffs unsupported assertion that the 1996 transfer was induced by fraud was insufficient to raise any triable issue (see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967 [1988]) Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered October 21, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the motion of the action No. 2 defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The documentary evidence adduced by the action No. 2 defendants showed that plaintiff-appellant duly transferred the subject real property in November 1996 so as to avoid the judicial process brought against her by reason of the many serious violations issued against the premises as well as to escape imprisonment for criminal contempt. Plaintiffs unsupported assertion that the 1996 transfer was induced by fraud was insufficient to raise any triable issue (see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 967 [1988]) Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 377, 806 N.Y.S.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/2365-lorillard-corp-v-krumszyn-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack