2406-12 Amsterdam Associates LLC v. Alianza LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

2406-12 Amsterdam Associates LLC v. Alianza LLC

136 A.D.3d 512, 25 N.Y.S.3d 167

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2016

Docket215 151120/13

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 512 (2406-12 Amsterdam Associates LLC v. Alianza LLC) 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

2406-12 Amsterdam Associates LLC v. Alianza LLC, 136 A.D.3d 512, 25 N.Y.S.3d 167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered January 21, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims for alter ego liability and fraudulent conveyance under the Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 through 276, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was not required to plead the elements of alter ego liability with the particularity required by CPLR 3016 (b), but only to plead in a non-conclusory manner (see International Credit Brokerage Co. v Agapov, 249 AD2d 77, 78 [1st Dept 1998]). The complaint, together with plaintiff’s affidavits in op *513 position to defendants’ motion, sufficiently alleges that defendant Alianza Dominicana transferred all of its assets to a newly formed entity, defendant Alianza LLC, which was 90% owned by Alianza Dominicana and had no employees and no function but to hold those assets away from creditors and, in particular, plaintiff. These and other allegations establish the alter ego theory (see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141-142 [1993]) sufficiently to sustain contract claims against Alianza LLC, although, as the motion court noted, alter ego is a theory of recovery, not an independent cause of action.

Plaintiff pleaded fraudulent conveyance under Debtor and Creditor Law § 276 with the requisite particularity. The allegations that Alianza Dominicana put plaintiff off with promises to pay, while in the process of transferring its assets to Alianza LLC, that Alianza LLC was owned by Alianza Dominicana, and that Alianza LLC had no employees and no business other than as a holding company for Alianza Dominicana’s assets establish sufficient “badges of fraud” to sustain the claim (see Pen Pak Corp. v LaSalle Natl. Bank of Chicago, 240 AD2d 384, 386 [2d Dept 1997]). Construed liberally, plaintiff’s allegations allege a lack of adequate consideration sufficient to sustain its claims under Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 through 275. Nor are these claims precluded by the Attorney General’s or court approval of the transfer of assets from Alianza Dominicana to Alianza LLC pursuant to N-PCL 510 through 511.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered January 21, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims for alter ego liability and fraudulent conveyance under the Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 through 276, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was not required to plead the elements of alter ego liability with the particularity required by CPLR 3016 (b), but only to plead in a non-conclusory manner (see International Credit Brokerage Co. v Agapov, 249 AD2d 77, 78 [1st Dept 1998]). The complaint, together with plaintiff’s affidavits in op *513 position to defendants’ motion, sufficiently alleges that defendant Alianza Dominicana transferred all of its assets to a newly formed entity, defendant Alianza LLC, which was 90% owned by Alianza Dominicana and had no employees and no function but to hold those assets away from creditors and, in particular, plaintiff. These and other allegations establish the alter ego theory (see Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 NY2d 135, 141-142 [1993]) sufficiently to sustain contract claims against Alianza LLC, although, as the motion court noted, alter ego is a theory of recovery, not an independent cause of action.

Plaintiff pleaded fraudulent conveyance under Debtor and Creditor Law § 276 with the requisite particularity. The allegations that Alianza Dominicana put plaintiff off with promises to pay, while in the process of transferring its assets to Alianza LLC, that Alianza LLC was owned by Alianza Dominicana, and that Alianza LLC had no employees and no business other than as a holding company for Alianza Dominicana’s assets establish sufficient “badges of fraud” to sustain the claim (see Pen Pak Corp. v LaSalle Natl. Bank of Chicago, 240 AD2d 384, 386 [2d Dept 1997]). Construed liberally, plaintiff’s allegations allege a lack of adequate consideration sufficient to sustain its claims under Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 through 275. Nor are these claims precluded by the Attorney General’s or court approval of the transfer of assets from Alianza Dominicana to Alianza LLC pursuant to N-PCL 510 through 511.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 512, 25 N.Y.S.3d 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/2406-12-amsterdam-associates-llc-v-alianza-llc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack