Wildman & Bernhardt Construction, Inc. v. BPM Associates

273 A.D.2d 38, 708 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6321
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 6, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 38 (Wildman & Bernhardt Construction, Inc. v. BPM Associates) 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
Wildman & Bernhardt Construction, Inc. v. BPM Associates, 273 A.D.2d 38, 708 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered October 15, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with respect to the first, second, fifth, sixth, and tenth causes of action and with respect to the portion of the seventh cause of action based on alleged fraudulent conveyances, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion to dismiss to the extent of dismissing the fifth cause of action as against defendant-appellant Alan J. Rogers, dismissing the portion of the seventh cause of action based on alleged fraudulent conveyances, and dismissing the tenth cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff general contractor’s first, second, fifth and sixth causes of action, which seek interim and final accountings and other relief to vindicate the interest of plaintiff and other beneficiaries of Lien Law trust funds arising from a building renovation project, were correctly sustained by the IAS Court as against defendants-appellants other than Alan J. Rogers, notwithstanding the complaint’s failure to allege a diversion of trust funds with any particularity, since proof of a diversion of trust funds is not a condition precedent to an action for an accounting and other relief under Lien Law article 3-A (Frontier Excavating v Sovereign Constr. Co., 30 AD2d 487, 491, appeal dismissed 24 NY2d 991; Raisler Corp. v Uris 55 Water St. Co., 91 Misc 2d 217, 224; Cadin Constr. Corp. v Adam Jay Assocs., 86 Misc 2d 407, 409). We modify to dismiss the fifth cause of action, which concerns the proceeds of the sales of condominium units within the building, solely as against defendant-appellant Rogers, who purchased and resold a condominium unit in the building but was not a party to any contract with plaintiff and never became obligated to pay for plaintiff’s work, notwithstanding the covenant included in the deed to Rogers’ grantee pursuant to Lien Law § 13 (see, Ellis Chingos Constr. Corp. v Carlton Props., 30 Misc 2d 883, 886).

The seventh cause of action fails to state a claim for fraudulent conveyance because, although conveyances of condominium units for no consideration are alleged, no facts are alleged in detail, as required by CPLR 3016 (b) (see, IDC [Queens] Corp. v Illuminating Experiences, 220 AD2d 337), that would [39]*39support an inference of a purpose of avoiding the provisions of article 2 of the Lien Law (Lien Law § 7) or of other actual intent to defraud (Debtor and Creditor Law § 276). The allegations of the complaint also do not support any inference that the two gratuitous conveyances left the transferor, with whom plaintiff contracted, insolvent (Debtor and Creditor Law § 273) or inadequately capitalized (Debtor and Creditor Law § 274). We further note that the conversion of the building to condominiums did not constitute a conveyance (see, Real Property Law § 290 [3]) that could support a fraudulent conveyance cause of action.

The tenth cause of action, which seeks damages for fraud based on the failure of the owner of the building to disclose to plaintiff the conversion of the building to condominiums and the subsequent conveyances of condominium units within the building, is legally insufficient because, inter alia, plaintiff, which had notice from its contract that the building would be converted to condominiums, could have apprised itself of the building’s status and ownership by checking public records (see, Shui Ching Chan v Bay Ridge Park Hill Realty Co., 213 AD2d 467, 469; Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 173 AD2d 203, 204-205). The building owner’s duty to treat certain funds as trust assets for the benefit of plaintiff and other contractors under Lien Law article 3-A did not render the owner a fiduciary of plaintiff in any other respects. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

HyAxiom, Inc. v. ClearCell Power, Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 32088(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP v. Marcus & Cinelli LLP
2024 NY Slip Op 02670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Inner Harbor Phase I L.P. v. Cor Inner Harbor Co. LLC
182 N.Y.S.3d 821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Kulback's Inc. v. Buffalo State Ventures, LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 04813 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Goldenberg v. Friedman
2021 NY Slip Op 00546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Rubin v. Sabharwal
2019 NY Slip Op 2975 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Chupack v. Gomez
2018 NY Slip Op 2544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Swartz v. Swartz
2016 NY Slip Op 8390 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Priestley v. Panmedix Inc.
134 A.D.3d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Ray v. Ray
108 A.D.3d 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Sutton Apartments Corp. v. Bradhurst 100 Development LLC
107 A.D.3d 646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Cheng v. Danjonro, Inc.
81 A.D.3d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Hylan Electrical Contracting, Inc. v. MasTec North America, Inc.
74 A.D.3d 1148 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
NTL Capital, LLC v. Right Track Recording, LLC
73 A.D.3d 410 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 A.D.2d 38, 708 N.Y.S.2d 400, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wildman-bernhardt-construction-inc-v-bpm-associates-nyappdiv-2000.