Great Neck Car Care Center Inc. v. Elian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Great Neck Car Care Center Inc. v. Elian

159 A.D.2d 484, 552 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2564

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 484 (Great Neck Car Care Center Inc. v. Elian) 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

Great Neck Car Care Center Inc. v. Elian, 159 A.D.2d 484, 552 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to set aside an allegedly fraudulent conveyance, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated February 10, 1989, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint and, sua sponte, which granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

We find that the complaint failed to state a cause of action under the Debtor and Creditor Law article 10, to set aside a fraudulent conveyance. The complaint contains no allegation that the conveyance left the debtor insolvent or otherwise unable to meet the plaintiff’s claim (see, Mariner Harbor Natl. Bank v Imperial Beverage Corp., 264 App Div 785; Lafayette Lbr. Co. v Selvester, 226 App Div 766).

While leave to amend should be freely granted (see, CPLR 3025), the plaintiff did not provide a proposed amended complaint nor any affidavit by a person with knowledge of the pertinent facts concerning the defendant Arthur Elian’s solvency or insolvency at the time of the conveyance (see, Saxon v Tung Foon Ong, 87 AD2d 867). In addition, the bare conclusory allegations by the plaintiff’s attorney were insufficient to support the plaintiff’s position or to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 302 (a) (2) (see, Badger v Lehigh Val. R. R. Co., 45 AD2d 601, 602). Having already conducted discovery and depositions of the defendants, the plaintiff was afforded a full opportunity to show that the transfer of property was fraudulent but it failed to do so.

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to set aside an allegedly fraudulent conveyance, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated February 10, 1989, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint and, sua sponte, which granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

We find that the complaint failed to state a cause of action under the Debtor and Creditor Law article 10, to set aside a fraudulent conveyance. The complaint contains no allegation that the conveyance left the debtor insolvent or otherwise unable to meet the plaintiff’s claim (see, Mariner Harbor Natl. Bank v Imperial Beverage Corp., 264 App Div 785; Lafayette Lbr. Co. v Selvester, 226 App Div 766).

While leave to amend should be freely granted (see, CPLR 3025), the plaintiff did not provide a proposed amended complaint nor any affidavit by a person with knowledge of the pertinent facts concerning the defendant Arthur Elian’s solvency or insolvency at the time of the conveyance (see, Saxon v Tung Foon Ong, 87 AD2d 867). In addition, the bare conclusory allegations by the plaintiff’s attorney were insufficient to support the plaintiff’s position or to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 302 (a) (2) (see, Badger v Lehigh Val. R. R. Co., 45 AD2d 601, 602). Having already conducted discovery and depositions of the defendants, the plaintiff was afforded a full opportunity to show that the transfer of property was fraudulent but it failed to do so.

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 484, 552 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-neck-car-care-center-inc-v-elian-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack