Pinella v. Crescent St. Corp.
| Decision Date | 16 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 593/14,2016–04311 |
| Citation | 176 A.D.3d 985,110 N.Y.S.3d 705 |
| Parties | Amelia PINELLA, etc., Respondent, v. CRESCENT ST. CORP., Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
176 A.D.3d 985
110 N.Y.S.3d 705
Amelia PINELLA, etc., Respondent,
v.
CRESCENT ST. CORP., Appellant, et al., Defendants.
2016–04311
Index No. 593/14
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—September 12, 2019
October 16, 2019
Maizes & Maizes, LLP, Bronx, N.Y. (Michael H. Maizes of counsel), for appellant.
Mallilo & Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Jessica Kronrad of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law article 10, the defendant Crescent St. Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ulysses B. Leverett, J.), entered March 21, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of that defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In 1993, the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant Crescent St. Corp. (hereinafter Crescent) to recover damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell on property then owned by Crescent (hereinafter the property). After Crescent failed to appear in that action, the Supreme Court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the total sum of $27,452.51. The judgment was docketed in the Queens County Clerk's Office on October 7, 1998, thus creating a 10–year lien on the property (see CPLR 5203[a] ). On January 31, 2008, Crescent sold the property to the defendant QPII 38–05 Crescent Street, LLC (hereinafter QPII). An attempt in August 2008 by the City Marshal to execute the judgment against the property on behalf of the plaintiff was unsuccessful.
In 2011, the plaintiff moved in the 1993 action to set aside the conveyance of the property to QPII as fraudulent and to extend the judgment lien for another 10 years. By order dated July 6, 2012, the Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that it did not have jurisdiction over QPII or First American Title Insurance Company (hereinafter First American), the title insurance company involved in the conveyance, and that the plaintiff failed to timely commence an action for a renewal judgment. The plaintiff appealed from so much of the order as denied that branch of her motion which was to extend the term of the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cadena v. Turner Constr. Co.
...989 N.Y.S.2d 302; see Boorstein v. 1261 48,h St. Condominium, 96 A.D.3d 703, 704, 946 N.Y.S.2d 200])'" (Pinella v. Crescent St. Corp., 3 176 A.D.3d 985, 987. 110 N.Y.S.3d 705 [2d Dep't. "A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to a determination of a m......
- U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Rose
- People v. Watts
-
Arias v. Allen J. Reyen, Inc.
...information (see CPLR 3212[f] ; Cantor–Sanchez v. Gonzalez–Socarras, 189 A.D.3d 977, 133 N.Y.S.3d 920 ; Pinella v. Crescent St. Corp., 176 A.D.3d 985, 987, 110 N.Y.S.3d 705 ). Accordingly, the motions should have been denied without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery.In l......