Gonzalez v. Champion

2025 NY Slip Op 51086(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, Westchester County
DecidedJuly 9, 2025
DocketIndex No. 64363/2017
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 51086(U) (Gonzalez v. Champion) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, Westchester County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gonzalez v. Champion, 2025 NY Slip Op 51086(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

Gonzalez v Champion (2025 NY Slip Op 51086(U)) [*1]

Gonzalez v Champion
2025 NY Slip Op 51086(U)
Decided on July 9, 2025
Supreme Court, Westchester County
Jamieson, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on July 9, 2025
Supreme Court, Westchester County


Angelita Gonzalez, Plaintiff,

against

Dr. Derrick R. Champion, Defendant.




Index No. 64363/2017

Lance Ehrenberg, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
56 W. 45th St., 3d Fl.
New York, NY 10036

Derrick Champion

William J. Robb, Esq.
Attorney for Cecilia S. Champion
36 Haight Ave.
Millbrook, NY 12545 Linda S. Jamieson, J.

The following paper numbered 1 was read on this motion:

Paper Number
Notice of Motion, Affirmation and Exhibit 1

Plaintiff brings her motion seeking an "Order under the New York Debtor and Creditor Laws declaring that the deed purportedly transferring Defendant's interest to his ex Wife Cecilia Champion is null and void." There is no indication that this motion was served on defendant.[FN1] For this reason alone, the Court must deny the motion.

There is a more significant reason that the Court must deny the motion, however. Plaintiff needed to commence a special proceeding against both defendant and his former wife, who is not a party to this action. This action is a dental malpractice action, and not one under the Debtor and Creditor Law. See generally Marine Midland Bank v. Murkoff, 120 AD2d 122, 124, 508 N.Y.S.2d 17, 19 (2d Dept. 1986). Moreover, Cecilia Champion is a necessary party, as it is her property that plaintiff now alleges was transferred to her in a fraudulent conveyance.

Accordingly, the motion is denied in its entirety. Plaintiff shall send a copy of this Decision and Order to defendant by overnight mail and email within three business days of receipt. Plaintiff shall send a copy of this Decision and Order to counsel for Cecilia Champion by email within three business days of receipt.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated: July 9, 2025
White Plains, New York
HON. LINDA S. JAMIESON
Justice of the Supreme Court
Footnotes


Footnote 1: The motion was made while defendant was still represented by counsel, but the Court relieved defendant's counsel on June 4, 2025.

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

Related

Marine Midland Bank v. Murkoff
120 A.D.2d 122 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 51086(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-champion-nysupctwster-2025.