Finnerty v. Kristiansen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finnerty v. Kristiansen

63 A.D.3d 676, 879 N.Y.S.2d 728

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

DecidedJune 2, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 676 (Finnerty v. Kristiansen) 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

Finnerty v. Kristiansen, 63 A.D.3d 676, 879 N.Y.S.2d 728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law article 10 to set aside certain transfers as fraudulent, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J), dated December 4, 2007, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs [677]*677causes of action alleging actual and constructive fraud were barred by the statute of limitations (see Matter of Gaglione v Sam’s Bargain Ctr., 283 AD2d 645 [2001]; Liberty Co. v Boyle, 272 AD2d 380 [2000]; Fandy Corp. v Lung-Fong Chen, 262 AD2d 352 [1999]; Wall St. Assoc. v Brodsky, 257 AD2d 526, 530 [1999]). Moreover, there is no merit to the plaintiffs argument that her second cause of action did not accrue until after entry of a money judgment in a related matrimonial action (see Debtor and Creditor Law § 270; Buttles v Smith, 281 NY 226 [1939]; Matter of Gaglione v Sam’s Bargain Ctr., 283 AD2d 645 [2001]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.E, Santucci, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law article 10 to set aside certain transfers as fraudulent, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J), dated December 4, 2007, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs [677]*677causes of action alleging actual and constructive fraud were barred by the statute of limitations (see Matter of Gaglione v Sam’s Bargain Ctr., 283 AD2d 645 [2001]; Liberty Co. v Boyle, 272 AD2d 380 [2000]; Fandy Corp. v Lung-Fong Chen, 262 AD2d 352 [1999]; Wall St. Assoc. v Brodsky, 257 AD2d 526, 530 [1999]). Moreover, there is no merit to the plaintiffs argument that her second cause of action did not accrue until after entry of a money judgment in a related matrimonial action (see Debtor and Creditor Law § 270; Buttles v Smith, 281 NY 226 [1939]; Matter of Gaglione v Sam’s Bargain Ctr., 283 AD2d 645 [2001]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.E, Santucci, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 676, 879 N.Y.S.2d 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finnerty-v-kristiansen-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack