Skilled Investors, Inc. v. Bank Julius Baer & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skilled Investors, Inc. v. Bank Julius Baer & Co.

62 A.D.3d 424, 878 N.Y.S.2d 53

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

DecidedMay 5, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 62 A.D.3d 424 (Skilled Investors, Inc. v. Bank Julius Baer & Co.) 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

Skilled Investors, Inc. v. Bank Julius Baer & Co., 62 A.D.3d 424, 878 N.Y.S.2d 53 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered June 3, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, upon reargument, denied the motion of defendant/cross-claim plaintiff Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd. (the bank) for partial summary judgment against defendants/cross-claim defendants Baruch Ivcher and Waxfield Limited, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.

After the bank settled this action with plaintiff, a victim of a complex Ponzi scheme perpetrated by a now deceased individual, it was assigned all plaintiff’s claims against Ivcher and Waxfield. Funds were improperly transferred from plaintiffs account to Ivcher and Waxfield. Thus, standing in the shoes of plaintiff, its assignor, the bank is entitled to summary judgment on its claims against Ivcher and Waxfield for money had and received and unjust enrichment (see Madison Liquidity Invs. 119, LLC v Griffith, 57 AD3d 438, 440 [2008]). Ivcher and Waxfield have no defense to these claims based on the bank’s own alleged unclean hands, since there is no evidence—indeed, there is no allegation—of wrongdoing on the part of plaintiff assignor (see Pro Bono Invs., Inc. v Gerry, 2008 WL 4755760, *20, 2008 US Dist LEXIS 87450, *56 [SD NY 2008]; Rankin v Toberoff, 1998 WL 370305, *5, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 9714, *20 [SD NY 1998]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered June 3, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, upon reargument, denied the motion of defendant/cross-claim plaintiff Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd. (the bank) for partial summary judgment against defendants/cross-claim defendants Baruch Ivcher and Waxfield Limited, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.

After the bank settled this action with plaintiff, a victim of a complex Ponzi scheme perpetrated by a now deceased individual, it was assigned all plaintiff’s claims against Ivcher and Waxfield. Funds were improperly transferred from plaintiffs account to Ivcher and Waxfield. Thus, standing in the shoes of plaintiff, its assignor, the bank is entitled to summary judgment on its claims against Ivcher and Waxfield for money had and received and unjust enrichment (see Madison Liquidity Invs. 119, LLC v Griffith, 57 AD3d 438, 440 [2008]). Ivcher and Waxfield have no defense to these claims based on the bank’s own alleged unclean hands, since there is no evidence—indeed, there is no allegation—of wrongdoing on the part of plaintiff assignor (see Pro Bono Invs., Inc. v Gerry, 2008 WL 4755760, *20, 2008 US Dist LEXIS 87450, *56 [SD NY 2008]; Rankin v Toberoff, 1998 WL 370305, *5, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 9714, *20 [SD NY 1998]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 424, 878 N.Y.S.2d 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skilled-investors-inc-v-bank-julius-baer-co-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack