Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Ramos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Ramos

38 A.D.3d 445, 831 N.Y.S.2d 320

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 445 (Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Ramos) 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

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Ramos, 38 A.D.3d 445, 831 N.Y.S.2d 320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen Smith, J), entered February 3, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendants Ramos and J.M.R. Concrete of Long Island Corp. to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Despite efforts to mischaracterize this action as one for fraudulent conveyance, the court properly found that it is one to enforce a judgment, governed by the 20-year statute of limitations (CPLR 211 [b]), and thus timely commenced (see Solow v Domestic Stone Erectors, 229 AD2d 312 [1996]). Plaintiff’s factual allegations, accepted as true and liberally construed as they must be at this procedural juncture (see Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362, 366 [1998]), sufficiently set forth legally cognizable claims against these defendants (see Chase Manhattan Bank [N.A.] v 264 Water St. Assoc., 174 AD2d 504 [1991]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Williams, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen Smith, J), entered February 3, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendants Ramos and J.M.R. Concrete of Long Island Corp. to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Despite efforts to mischaracterize this action as one for fraudulent conveyance, the court properly found that it is one to enforce a judgment, governed by the 20-year statute of limitations (CPLR 211 [b]), and thus timely commenced (see Solow v Domestic Stone Erectors, 229 AD2d 312 [1996]). Plaintiff’s factual allegations, accepted as true and liberally construed as they must be at this procedural juncture (see Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362, 366 [1998]), sufficiently set forth legally cognizable claims against these defendants (see Chase Manhattan Bank [N.A.] v 264 Water St. Assoc., 174 AD2d 504 [1991]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Williams, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 445, 831 N.Y.S.2d 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioners-of-state-insurance-fund-v-ramos-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack