BBCN Bank v. 12th Avenue Restaurant Group Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

BBCN Bank v. 12th Avenue Restaurant Group Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 4229, 150 A.D.3d 623, 55 N.Y.S.3d 225

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

DecidedMay 25, 2017

Docket4139 159880/13

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4229 (BBCN Bank v. 12th Avenue Restaurant Group Inc.) 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

BBCN Bank v. 12th Avenue Restaurant Group Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 4229, 150 A.D.3d 623, 55 N.Y.S.3d 225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered February 16, 2016, which denied defendant Robert N. Swetnick’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the third and tenth causes of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant Swetnick’s motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

On appeal, plaintiff concedes that it seeks to hold Swetnick liable for aiding and abetting a fraudulent conveyance, not for aiding and abetting fraud generally. The cause of action for aiding and abetting a fraudulent conveyance also should have been dismissed, because there is no cause of action for aiding *624 and abetting a fraudulent conveyance against a person, such as Swetnick in this case, who is alleged merely to have assisted in effecting the transfer, in a professional capacity, and who is not alleged to have been a transferee of the assets or to have benefited from the transaction (see Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v Porco, 75 NY2d 840, 842 [1990]; Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v 8an Capital Partners Master Fund, L.P., 132 AD3d 402, 402 [1st Dept 2015]; Estate of Shefner v Beraudiere, 127 AD3d 442 [2015]; Cahen-Vorburger v Vorburger, 41 AD3d 281, 282 [1st Dept 2007]; Gallant v Kanterman, 198 AD2d 76, 80 [1st Dept 1993]; see also Roselink Invs., L.L.C. v Shenkman, 386 F Supp 2d 209, 226-227 [SD NY 2004]; Geren v Quantum Chem. Corp., 832 F Supp 728, 736 [SD NY 1993], affd 99 F3d 401 [2d Cir 1995]; In re Parker, 399 BR 577, 580-581 [ED NY 2009]). Since the substantive claim against Swetnick fails as a matter of law, the tenth cause of action, for attorney’s fees pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 276-a, must also be dismissed as against him.

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered February 16, 2016, which denied defendant Robert N. Swetnick’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the third and tenth causes of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant Swetnick’s motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

On appeal, plaintiff concedes that it seeks to hold Swetnick liable for aiding and abetting a fraudulent conveyance, not for aiding and abetting fraud generally. The cause of action for aiding and abetting a fraudulent conveyance also should have been dismissed, because there is no cause of action for aiding *624 and abetting a fraudulent conveyance against a person, such as Swetnick in this case, who is alleged merely to have assisted in effecting the transfer, in a professional capacity, and who is not alleged to have been a transferee of the assets or to have benefited from the transaction (see Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v Porco, 75 NY2d 840, 842 [1990]; Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v 8an Capital Partners Master Fund, L.P., 132 AD3d 402, 402 [1st Dept 2015]; Estate of Shefner v Beraudiere, 127 AD3d 442 [2015]; Cahen-Vorburger v Vorburger, 41 AD3d 281, 282 [1st Dept 2007]; Gallant v Kanterman, 198 AD2d 76, 80 [1st Dept 1993]; see also Roselink Invs., L.L.C. v Shenkman, 386 F Supp 2d 209, 226-227 [SD NY 2004]; Geren v Quantum Chem. Corp., 832 F Supp 728, 736 [SD NY 1993], affd 99 F3d 401 [2d Cir 1995]; In re Parker, 399 BR 577, 580-581 [ED NY 2009]). Since the substantive claim against Swetnick fails as a matter of law, the tenth cause of action, for attorney’s fees pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 276-a, must also be dismissed as against him.

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4229, 150 A.D.3d 623, 55 N.Y.S.3d 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bbcn-bank-v-12th-avenue-restaurant-group-inc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack