Deutsche Bank, AG v. Vik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deutsche Bank, AG v. Vik

138 A.D.3d 506, 28 N.Y.S.3d 311

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

DecidedApril 12, 2016

Docket813 161257/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 506 (Deutsche Bank, AG v. Vik) 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

Deutsche Bank, AG v. Vik, 138 A.D.3d 506, 28 N.Y.S.3d 311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered February 4, 2015, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and to cancel a notice of pendency, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly found that it had personal jurisdiction over defendant Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI) pursuant to CPLR 303 and over defendants Alexander Vik, C.M. Beatrice, Inc. (Beatrice) and CSCSNE trust based on the well pleaded allegations that SHI and Vik are alter egos and that Vik, Beatrice and CSCSNE trust are alter egos. It also correctly *507 found that New York law applies to the alter ego causes of action (see Serio v Ardra Ins. Co., 304 AD2d 362 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 516 [2003]).

The fraudulent conveyance causes of action alleging that plaintiff’s injury was suffered in New York are adequately stated under the applicable New York law and timely filed (see Loreley Fin. [Jersey] No. 28, Ltd. v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 117 AD3d 463, 465 [1st Dept 2014]). At the very least, issues of fact exist as to the situs of plaintiff’s injury. The unjust enrichment claim was also timely asserted.

There is no basis for dismissing the third cause of action, seeking to enforce a foreign judgment against Vik under CPLR article 53, since plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate that Vik is the alter ego of SHI (see Harvardsky Prumyslovy Holding, AS.-V Likvidaci v Kozeny, 117 AD3d 77, 83 [1st Dept 2014]).

The court also correctly declined to dismiss the ninth cause of action and to cancel the notice of pendency.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels 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 (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered February 4, 2015, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and to cancel a notice of pendency, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly found that it had personal jurisdiction over defendant Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI) pursuant to CPLR 303 and over defendants Alexander Vik, C.M. Beatrice, Inc. (Beatrice) and CSCSNE trust based on the well pleaded allegations that SHI and Vik are alter egos and that Vik, Beatrice and CSCSNE trust are alter egos. It also correctly *507 found that New York law applies to the alter ego causes of action (see Serio v Ardra Ins. Co., 304 AD2d 362 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 516 [2003]).

The fraudulent conveyance causes of action alleging that plaintiff’s injury was suffered in New York are adequately stated under the applicable New York law and timely filed (see Loreley Fin. [Jersey] No. 28, Ltd. v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 117 AD3d 463, 465 [1st Dept 2014]). At the very least, issues of fact exist as to the situs of plaintiff’s injury. The unjust enrichment claim was also timely asserted.

There is no basis for dismissing the third cause of action, seeking to enforce a foreign judgment against Vik under CPLR article 53, since plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate that Vik is the alter ego of SHI (see Harvardsky Prumyslovy Holding, AS.-V Likvidaci v Kozeny, 117 AD3d 77, 83 [1st Dept 2014]).

The court also correctly declined to dismiss the ninth cause of action and to cancel the notice of pendency.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 506, 28 N.Y.S.3d 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deutsche-bank-ag-v-vik-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack