Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Kirchner v. Bernard, NYLJ 6/1/18, p. 22., col. 1, AppDiv, First Dept. (memorandum opinion)
In creditor's action to set aside an assignment of the right to purchase a co-op apartment at an insider's price, assignees appealed from Supreme Court's award of judgment to creditor. The Appellate Division reversed and granted summary judgment to assignees, holding that assignment was not fraudulent.
The building in which the subject apartment is located was converted to co-operative ownership in 1981. At that time, the current occupants of the apartment did not purchase he apartment, so the shares were allocated to the sponsor. In 1990, the occupant, Vera, brought a declaratory judgment action against the sponsor and the co-op board, seeking to enforce a contract to purchase the apartment at an insider's price. The board objected to the sale because of Vera's failure to provide information about her financial stability. The parties entered into a settlement agreement by the terms of which Vera assigned all of her rights in the contract to her niece's husband. A few months later, creditors obtained judgment against Vera in the amount of $400,000. That judgment has not been satisfied. Creditors then sought to set aside the assignment of contract rights as a fraudulent conveyance. Supreme Court granted judgment to the creditors, and the assignee appealed.
In reversing, the Appellate Division emphasized the testimony of the assignee's witnesses, who emphasized that the assignment was a means of enabling the conveyance of the shares to the nephew while extinguishing Vera's claims against the co-op corporation. The court noted that the creditors had submitted no proof rebutting that testimony, and concluded that their contention that Vera would have prevailed in the action against the co-operative was speculative. As a result the court held that the fraudulent conveyance claim should be dismissed.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.