Siegman v. Rosen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siegman v. Rosen

248 A.D.2d 180, 669 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2374

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 180 (Siegman v. Rosen) 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

Siegman v. Rosen, 248 A.D.2d 180, 669 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered July 3, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ cross motion to “preclude evidence of all alleged pre-March 2, 1986 transactions between the defendants”, unanimously modified, on the law, to restrict the aforesaid limitation to plaintiffs claims for fraudulent conveyance, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The six-year Statute of Limitations for claims for fraudulent conveyance is not applicable to and, accordingly, should not have been invoked to preclude proof relevant to, that aspect of plaintiff petitioner’s “suit in aid of execution to discover assets for the purpose of producing satisfaction” for a judgment (see, Altman v Finkel, 268 App Div 666, 671-672, affd 295 NY 651). A suit in aid of execution is a separate cause of action brought pursuant to CPLR 5227, not the Debtor and Creditor Law, and we note that, in distinction to causes for fraudulent conveyance arising under the Debtor and Creditor Law, a CPLR 5227 cause of action does not and indeed cannot accrue until judgment is entered against the debtor.

[181]*181We have considered plaintiffs additional arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered July 3, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ cross motion to “preclude evidence of all alleged pre-March 2, 1986 transactions between the defendants”, unanimously modified, on the law, to restrict the aforesaid limitation to plaintiffs claims for fraudulent conveyance, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The six-year Statute of Limitations for claims for fraudulent conveyance is not applicable to and, accordingly, should not have been invoked to preclude proof relevant to, that aspect of plaintiff petitioner’s “suit in aid of execution to discover assets for the purpose of producing satisfaction” for a judgment (see, Altman v Finkel, 268 App Div 666, 671-672, affd 295 NY 651). A suit in aid of execution is a separate cause of action brought pursuant to CPLR 5227, not the Debtor and Creditor Law, and we note that, in distinction to causes for fraudulent conveyance arising under the Debtor and Creditor Law, a CPLR 5227 cause of action does not and indeed cannot accrue until judgment is entered against the debtor.

[181]*181We have considered plaintiffs additional arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 180, 669 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegman-v-rosen-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack