Harts v. Horowitz

New York Supreme Court

Harts v. Horowitz

21 Misc. 2d 631, 195 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2641

DecidedNovember 13, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Misc. 2d 631 (Harts v. Horowitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harts v. Horowitz, 21 Misc. 2d 631, 195 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2641 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Harold J. Crawford, J.

Motion by the defendants to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency on the ground principally that there is no allegation that the defendants or either of them were insolvent at the time of the alleged transfer of title or were rendered insolvent by virtue of such transfer.

[632]*632Were this action based on sections 271 and 273 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, the defendants would, undoubtedly, be correct in their contention. This action, however, is predicated upon the claim that the transfer by the defendant George Horowitz of his interest in real property to his wife, the codefendant Betty Horowitz, “ was made without consideration and with intent to hinder, delay and defraud the plaintiff of its claim and was so accepted by the defendant Betty Horowitz.” This action is, therefore, governed by section 276 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, and in that connection the Court of Appeals observed, in Pattison v. Pattison (301 N. Y. 65, 73-74): “A conveyance is fraudulent when the grantor, even though solvent, is motivated by an intent to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The motion is, accordingly, denied. The defendant may answer within 10' days.

Submit order.

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

Harold J. Crawford, J.

Motion by the defendants to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency on the ground principally that there is no allegation that the defendants or either of them were insolvent at the time of the alleged transfer of title or were rendered insolvent by virtue of such transfer.

[632]*632Were this action based on sections 271 and 273 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, the defendants would, undoubtedly, be correct in their contention. This action, however, is predicated upon the claim that the transfer by the defendant George Horowitz of his interest in real property to his wife, the codefendant Betty Horowitz, “ was made without consideration and with intent to hinder, delay and defraud the plaintiff of its claim and was so accepted by the defendant Betty Horowitz.” This action is, therefore, governed by section 276 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, and in that connection the Court of Appeals observed, in Pattison v. Pattison (301 N. Y. 65, 73-74): “A conveyance is fraudulent when the grantor, even though solvent, is motivated by an intent to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The motion is, accordingly, denied. The defendant may answer within 10' days.

Submit order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Misc. 2d 631, 195 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harts-v-horowitz-nysupct-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack