Matter of Wbp Central Associates, LLC v. Decola
Decision Date | 01 April 2008 |
Docket Number | 2006-11415. |
Citation | 50 A.D.3d 693,855 N.Y.S.2d 210,2008 NY Slip Op 03014 |
Parties | In the Matter of WBP CENTRAL ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellant, v. RICHARD DECOLA et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings on the petition.
Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, a claim to set aside an allegedly fraudulent conveyance of money, assets, or property may be asserted in a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225 (b), without first commencing a plenary action pursuant to article 10 of the Debtor and Creditor Law ( ). We note that our decision in Taskiran v Murphy (8 AD3d 360, 361 [2004]) is factually distinguishable from the instant case.
The petitioner correctly contends that, pursuant to the "trust fund doctrine" (Credit Agricole Indosuez v Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank, 94 NY2d 541, 549 [2000]), it may litigate, in a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225 (b), its claims that transfers were made without fair consideration, that the respondents Richard DeCola and Patricia Snowden, also known as Patricia DeCola, are the alter egos of the various corporate respondents, and that the corporate veil may be pierced (see Julien J. Studley, Inc. v Lefrak, 48 NY2d 954, 956 [1979]; Matter of Goldman v Chapman, 44 AD3d 938, 939-940 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 702 [2008]; First Capital Asset Mgt. v N.A. Partners, 300 AD2d 112 [2002]; Matter of P.A. Bldg. Co. v Silverman, 298 AD2d 327, 328 [2002]; O'Brien-Kreitzberg & Assoc. v K.P., Inc., 218 AD2d 519, 520 [1995]; Matter of Lack v Kreiner, 91 AD2d 813 [1982]).
However, the petitioner failed to establish its entitlement to a summary determination of the proceeding (see CPLR 409 [b]; Matter of National Enters., Inc. v Clermont Farm Corp., 46 AD3d 1180, 1183 [2007]). Therefore, this Court need not reach the sufficiency of the respondents' papers (see Ayotte v Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062 [1993]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 45 AD3d 579 [2007]). The evidence presented with the petition, among other things, did not establish, as a matter of law, that assets belonging to the respondent Deco Construction Corp. (hereinafter Deco Construction) were diverted to the respondent Deco Supply Corp., or that fraudulent transfers were made to the respondents Deco Land Holding Corp., Deco Management Corp., or RMS Yorktown Development Corp. The evidence indicated that a significant amount of the assets allegedly conveyed in a fraudulent manner may not have been obtained from Deco Construction.
Moreover, the evidence presented with the petition did not establish, as a matter of law, that the sole shareholders of the respondent corporations exercised complete domination and control over those corporations so as to "commit a fraud or wrong against the [petitioner] which resulted in [the petitioner's] injury" (Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation &...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
High Speed Capital, LLC v. Corporate Debt Advisors, LLC
...plenary action." Mitchell v. Lyons Prof'l Servs., Inc., 727 F.Supp.2d 120, 123 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ; see WBP Cent. Assocs., LLC v. DeCola, 50 A.D.3d 693, 693, 855 N.Y.S.2d 210 (2d Dep't 2008) ("[A] claim to set aside an allegedly fraudulent conveyance of money, assets, or property may be assert......
-
Wells Fargo Bank Na v. Wyo Tech Inv. Grp. LLC
...the alter egos of the various corporate respondents, and that the corporate veil may be pierced." WBP Cent. Assocs., LLC v. DeCola , 50 A.D.3d 693, 694, 855 N.Y.S.2d 210 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Because the restraining notice itself does not require turnover of the funds and simply requires m......
-
Am. Federated Title Corp. v. GFI Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 13–cv–6437 AJN.
...judgment creditors may bring veil-piercing claims under CPLR § 5225(b) would all be incorrect. See WBP Cent. Associates, LLC v. DeCola, 50 A.D.3d 693, 855 N.Y.S.2d 210, 211 (2d Dep't 2008) (collecting cases). Indeed, in Cordius Trust, the Second Circuit held that a plaintiff properly brough......
-
TNT Petroleum, Inc. v. Sea Petroleum, Inc.
...to article 10 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, to set aside allegedly fraudulent conveyances (see Matter of WBP Cent. Assoc., LLC v. DeCola, 50 A.D.3d 693, 694, 855 N.Y.S.2d 210; O'Brien-Kreitzberg & Assoc. v. K.P., Inc., 218 A.D.2d 519, 520, 630 N.Y.S.2d 76; Planned Consumer Mktg. v. Coats ......