Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v. 8an Capital Partners Master Fund, L.P.

132 A.D.3d 402, 16 N.Y.S.3d 733
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 1, 2015
Docket15532 156559/14
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 402 (Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v. 8an Capital Partners Master Fund, L.P.) 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
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v. 8an Capital Partners Master Fund, L.P., 132 A.D.3d 402, 16 N.Y.S.3d 733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered January 16, 2015, which denied defendant Philip Eytan’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The motion court should have granted defendant’s motion. The complaint alleges that defendant knew of and participated in the alleged fraudulent transfer of assets but fails to allege that he is the transferee, and further fails to allege, in anything other than conclusory fashion, that he benefited from the transfer, as required to state a cause of action for fraudulent conveyance (Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273, 276; Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v Porco, 75 NY2d 840, 842 [1990]; Symbax, Inc. v Bingaman, 219 AD2d 552, 553-554 [1st Dept 1995]). Moreover, while defendant is an officer of both defendant transferor and transferee corporations, “receipt of a salary from the *403 transferee corporation as an officer of the corporation is not sufficient to render the officer a transferee or beneficiary of the transfer” (D’Mel & Assoc, v Athco, Inc., 105 AD3d 451, 452-453 [1st Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). As there are no other nonconclusory allegations sufficient to hold defendant individually liable for the fraudulent transfer, the complaint should be dismissed as against him (see Riback v Margulis, 43 AD3d 1023, 1023 [2d Dept 2007]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Gische, JJ.

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

Related

H. Daya International Co. v. Do Denim LLC
258 F. Supp. 3d 401 (S.D. New York, 2017)
BBCN Bank v. 12th Avenue Restaurant Group Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 4229 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Swartz v. Swartz
2016 NY Slip Op 8390 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D.3d 402, 16 N.Y.S.3d 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantor-fitzgerald-co-v-8an-capital-partners-master-fund-lp-nyappdiv-2015.