Iannazzo v. Stanson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iannazzo v. Stanson

27 A.D.3d 272, 810 N.Y.S.2d 473

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 272 (Iannazzo v. Stanson) 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

Iannazzo v. Stanson, 27 A.D.3d 272, 810 N.Y.S.2d 473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), both entered February 7, 2005, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report, dated December 27, 2004, declared the disputed real property transfer void ah initio, and directed plaintiff-appellant to transfer the real property to a court-appointed receiver, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this partnership dispute, the court, upon finding that plaintiff partner Vincent E Iannazzo had fraudulently transferred Florida real estate purchased with partnership funds, properly declared the transfer null and void ah initio. In view of the lis pendens filed against the property prior to its transfer, the nonparty transferee was bound by the proceedings determining, inter alia, the partners’ respective rights to the subject property (see CPLR 6501; Intermediary Fin. Corp. v McKay, 93 Fla 101, 111 So 531 [1927]). Particularly in view of plaintiff-appellant’s violation of the court’s injunction against dissipation of the partnership’s assets, the court’s equitable powers were properly exercised to require plaintiff-appellant to convey the Florida property to a court-appointed receiver (see Fall v Eastin, [273]*273215 US 1, 8 [1909]; Gardiner v Gardiner, 705 So 2d 1018, 1020 [Fla 5th Dist Ct App 1998]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), both entered February 7, 2005, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report, dated December 27, 2004, declared the disputed real property transfer void ah initio, and directed plaintiff-appellant to transfer the real property to a court-appointed receiver, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this partnership dispute, the court, upon finding that plaintiff partner Vincent E Iannazzo had fraudulently transferred Florida real estate purchased with partnership funds, properly declared the transfer null and void ah initio. In view of the lis pendens filed against the property prior to its transfer, the nonparty transferee was bound by the proceedings determining, inter alia, the partners’ respective rights to the subject property (see CPLR 6501; Intermediary Fin. Corp. v McKay, 93 Fla 101, 111 So 531 [1927]). Particularly in view of plaintiff-appellant’s violation of the court’s injunction against dissipation of the partnership’s assets, the court’s equitable powers were properly exercised to require plaintiff-appellant to convey the Florida property to a court-appointed receiver (see Fall v Eastin, [273]*273215 US 1, 8 [1909]; Gardiner v Gardiner, 705 So 2d 1018, 1020 [Fla 5th Dist Ct App 1998]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 272, 810 N.Y.S.2d 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iannazzo-v-stanson-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack