Allied Group, Inc. v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allied Group, Inc. v. Levine

303 A.D.2d 698, 756 N.Y.S.2d 862

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 698 (Allied Group, Inc. v. Levine) 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

Allied Group, Inc. v. Levine, 303 A.D.2d 698, 756 N.Y.S.2d 862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for a fraudulent conveyance, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), entered February 15, 2002, which, upon converting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to one for summary judgment, granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiffs cross motion to compel discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, thereby shifting the burden to the plaintiff to submit admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the bi-weekly transfers of money to the defendants David Levine and Bruce Carlton by the defendant MyBrowzer.com, Inc., pursuant to their respective written employment contracts, lacked fair consideration or were made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the plaintiff (see Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273, 276; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Cilco Cement Corp. v White, 55 AD2d 668 [1976]). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for a fraudulent conveyance, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), entered February 15, 2002, which, upon converting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to one for summary judgment, granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiffs cross motion to compel discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, thereby shifting the burden to the plaintiff to submit admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the bi-weekly transfers of money to the defendants David Levine and Bruce Carlton by the defendant MyBrowzer.com, Inc., pursuant to their respective written employment contracts, lacked fair consideration or were made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the plaintiff (see Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273, 276; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Cilco Cement Corp. v White, 55 AD2d 668 [1976]). Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 698, 756 N.Y.S.2d 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allied-group-inc-v-levine-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack