CDR Créances S.A. v. Cohen

Decision Date27 December 2012
Citation104 A.D.3d 17,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 09189,957 N.Y.S.2d 75
PartiesCDR CRÉANCES S.A., as Successor to Societe de Banque Occidentale, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Maurice COHEN, Defendant–Appellant, Summerson International Establishment, et al., Defendants. CDR Créances, S.A., as Successor to Societe de Banque Occidentale, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Leon Cohen, etc., et al., Defendants–Appellants, Iderval Holdings, Ltd., et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky LLP, New York (David S. Pegno of counsel), for appellants.

Kellner Herlihy Getty & Friedman LLP, New York (Douglas A. Kellner of course), for respondent.

LUIS A. GONZALEZ, P.J., PETER TOM, JAMES M. CATTERSON, DIANNE T. RENWICK, ROSALYN H. RICHTER, JJ.

TOM, J.

This matter arises out of the diversion of the proceeds of a loan made by plaintiff's predecessor in interest to finance the renovation of a Manhattan property as a hotel. The conversion of the funds was accomplished by capital transfers to shell entities controlled by defendants Maurice Cohen and his son, Leon (collectively, the Cohens).1 They were assisted in this enterprise by Sonia Cohen, wife of Maurice Cohen, and two family employees, Robert Maraboeuf and Allegria Achour Aich (collectively, appellants). We agree with Supreme Court's overall conclusion that these defendants have exhibited no less dishonesty before the courts as in their dealings with business associates and the federal taxing authorities. Thus, in view of their well-documented acts of deceit and fraud committed to suborn the judicial process, this Court concludes that the sanction of striking their pleadings and entering judgment on default in the principal sum of $135,359,331.30 with prejudgment interest, was entirely appropriate.

Plaintiff is the successor in interest to Societe de Bank Occidentale (SDBO), a wholly owned subsidiary of French bank Credit Lyonnais. SDBO and SNC Coenson International et Cie (SNC) formed a partnership to develop the Flatotel hotel in Paris, part of a worldwide franchise of hotels. In 1990, SDBO and SNC became shareholders of Euro–American Lodging Corporation (EALC), whose purpose was to convert a Manhattan building into a Flatotel hotel. SDBO was to provide financing and SNC to provide expertise in the hotel industry. SNC nominally purchased SDBO's share in EALC for $50,000 because SDBO, as a foreign bank operating in the United States, could not own shares in a nonbanking business. SDBO's financing, pursuant to a pledge agreement, was secured by a mortgage and security interest in all of EALC's outstanding stock. In 1991, the parties entered into a new loan agreement, governed by French law, under which SDBO was to provide financing of $82,704,990 to the Manhattan Flatotel venture, to be disbursed as construction progressed, and EALC, among other things, was to pay taxes on the Manhattan property.

The relationship between the venture's participants began to deteriorate in 1992, when SDBO accused EALC, controlled by Maurice Cohen, of diverting funds, and as a result refused to provide further financing for the construction. A decade of litigation before the French courts began with EALC's filing an action to compel SDBO to distribute funds under the loan agreement and SDBO's counterclaim seeking to accelerate payment of the loan debt on account of EALC's default. In 2003, EALC was directed by the French court to repay the loan and $13,923,311 in taxes it was to have paid to the City of New York. The French judgment was recognized in this jurisdiction and, in 2005, plaintiff was granted judgment in the principal sum of $95,837,522 plus interest of $112,159,088.41, which this Court affirmed ( CDR Créances S.A. v. Euro–American Lodging Corp., 40 A.D.3d 421, 837 N.Y.S.2d 609 [1st Dept. 2007] ). Plaintiff also instituted a mortgage foreclosure action predicated on EALC's default on the same loan agreement ( CDR Creances S.A. v. Euro–American Lodging Corp., 43 A.D.3d 45, 837 N.Y.S.2d 33 [1st Dept. 2007] ).

Also in 2003, plaintiff instituted a tort action asserting six causes of action and, in 2006, a second tort action asserting 38 causes of action—including fraud, fraudulent conveyance and conversion—against the Cohens, Sonia Cohen, various entities alleged to be controlled by them and certain of their employees. These actions were consolidated, and the first discovery conference was held in early March 2008. By way of an order entered August 13, 2008, Supreme Court struck the answers of the Cohen defendants and others for failure to comply with discovery demands, and judgment was entered against them later that month. This Court reversed the judgment, stating that due to the brief period that had elapsed from the initial discovery order and the granting of judgment by default, “reasonable latitude should have been afforded before imposing the ultimate sanction” (62 A.D.3d 576, 577, 880 N.Y.S.2d 251 [1st Dept. 2009] ). Thereafter, defendants continued to resist discovery orders that this Court found to be generally within the exercise of Supreme Court's discretion (77 A.D.3d 489, 491, 909 N.Y.S.2d 697 [1st Dept. 2010] [upholding all directives except production of Maurice Cohen's personal tax returns] ).

In April 2010, Maurice Cohen (a.k.a. Mauricio Cohen Assor) and Leon Cohen (a.k.a. Leon Cohen Levy) were arrested by federal authorities for conspiracy to defraud the United States government and subscription to false income tax returns. Joelle Habib and Patricia Habib Petetin Benharbon (Petetin), two sisters who had been in the employ of the Cohen family, entered into agreements with the Justice Department's tax division to provide information, respond to questions and testify before the grand jury and at trial in exchange for the government's promise not to prosecute them for activities in connection with their involvement with Maurice and Leon Cohen. The criminal case was heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and the jury returned a guilty verdict in early October 2010. The testimony given by the Habib sisters at trial revealed a coordinated pattern of deceit calculated to conceal the defendants' ownership of the New York property and the shell corporations to which the proceeds of its sale were transferred. It emerged that, in violation of the loan agreement with SDBO, the defendants had caused the New York property to be sold for some $33 million and, using entities they controlled (both Panamanian), converted the proceeds to their own use and avoided paying taxes on the income derived from the sale by transferring the money first to the Swiss bank account of Blue Ocean Finance and then to the account of Carribean Business Fund, maintained at the same bank.2

At sentencing, the District Court found that the Cohens had engaged in criminal activity that “SPANNED THE BETTER PART OF A DECADE OR MORE, INVOLVED NUMEROUS FICTITIOUS ENTITIES, AN ELABORATE WEB OF SHELL CORPORATIONS, AND HEAVY HANDED [treatment] OF A NUMBER [of] LESS SOPHISTICATED FINANCIALLY DEPENDENT EMPLOYEES IN THE SCHEME.” The court further found “THAT THE DEFENDANTS MAURICIO COHEN ASSOR AND LEON COHEN LEVY COMMITTED PERJURY.” The court noted that they gave false testimony concerning such matters as the ownership of the New York property, the events that transpired at the closing of its sale, the ownership of the shell corporations they controlled, the involvement of various relatives in the operation of those entities and “THE FORGING OF SIGNATURES ON A HOST OF DOCUMENTS.”

After the extent of the defendants' misconduct before the courts became apparent as a result of the federal investigation, plaintiff brought the instant motion to strike appellants' pleadings in August 2010. Supreme Court held a full evidentiary hearing to assess whether appellants had perpetrated a fraud upon the court. Appellants elected not to testify, and Maurice and Leon Cohen chose to rely solely on the testimony they had given at their federal trial. Testimony was received from the Habib sisters, who described a coordinated effort to deceive the courts. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the documentary evidence, Supreme Court issued a 17–page, single-spaced decision, in which it concluded, on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, that appellants had committed a fraud on the court. In the first order appealed from, the court granted plaintiff's motion, struck appellants' answers and directed that judgment be entered on default. Following resettlement, the second order appealed from, judgment was entered against appellants in the amount of $135,359,331.30 with prejudgment interest from which appellants also appeal.

Appellants challenge the disposition on the grounds that the court applied the wrong standard of proof in holding that they committed a fraud directed at the court warranting the striking of their pleadings and, thus, abused its discretion in imposing the sanction of judgment by default. They further contend that the court erred in directing entry of judgment without conducting an inquest. The short answer to these assertions is that the proof elicited is more than sufficient to establish that appellants engaged in an extensive scheme to suborn perjury and subvert the judicial process; and calculation of the judgment, which is predicated on a foreign judgment recognized in this jurisdiction and affirmed by this Court, is a ministerial matter requiring only computation by the Clerk of the Court (CPLR 3215[a] ).

Appellants portray the primary issue on appeal as the evidentiary standard to be applied in deciding if a fraud on the court has been committed. The parties contest whether such misconduct must be “conclusively demonstrated,” as appellants contend (citing Melcher v. Apollo Med. Fund Mgt. L.L.C., 52 A.D.3d 244, 859 N.Y.S.2d 160 [1st Dept. 2008] ).

Appellants' discussion of Melcher places great weight on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Verizon N.Y., Inc. v. Consol. Edison, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • June 30, 2014
    ...supra at 489, 637 N.Y.S.2d 15) warranting an order striking the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126(3). See CDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen, 104 A.D.3d 17, 957 N.Y.S.2d 75 (1st Dept.2012) ; Figdor v. City of New York, 33 A.D.3d 560, 823 N.Y.S.2d 385 (1st Dept.2006) ; Reidel v. Ryder TRS, Inc., 13 ......
  • CDR CRéances S.A.S. v. Cohen
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 2014
    ...system. With one exception, the record on this appeal supports such sanctions, and we therefore affirm, in part, the Appellate Division (104 A.D.3d 17, 957 N.Y.S.2d 75 [1st Dept.2012] ).I This appeal arises from fraudulent conduct by defendants during the course of litigation by plaintiff, ......
  • CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 2014
    ...system. With one exception, the record on this appeal supports such sanctions, and we therefore affirm, in part, the Appellate Division (104 A.D.3d 17, 957 N.Y.S.2d 75 [1st Dept.2012] ).IThis appeal arises from fraudulent conduct by defendants during the course of litigation by plaintiff, C......
  • Edoo-Rajotte v. Kendall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • December 6, 2019
    ...the striking of their [pleading]" (Kutner v Feiden, Dweck & Sladkus, 223 A.D.2d 488, 489 [1st Dept. 1998]; see CDR Creances S.A. v Cohen, 104 A.D.3d 17 (1st Dept. 2012); Reidel v. Ryder TRS, Inc., 13 A.D.3d 170 [1st Dept. 2004]). Absent a showing that a "defendant's failure to comply with d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT