From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Braun Farms v. Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 15, 2002
296 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-06160

Submitted May 30, 2002

July 15, 2002.

In an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance and for an accounting, the defendant Bruce Goldman appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.) entered June 7, 2001, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the principal sum of $68,157.

Kuzman Karelsen Frank, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Charles Palella of counsel), for appellant.

Farrauto Berman, Yonkers, N.Y. (Howard E. Berman of counsel), for respondents.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In March 1993 the nonparty corporation, Bella Lane Farms, Inc. (hereinafter BLF), executed installment notes in excess of $400,000 in favor of the plaintiffs in connection with BLF's purchase of the plaintiffs' business. BLF also executed chattel mortgages against, inter alia, its accounts receivable to secure payment of the notes.

On June 1, 1998, the defendant Leonard Goldman, president and sole shareholder of BLF, executed, in his individual and representative capacities, an assignment transferring all of BLF's outstanding accounts receivable to his son and vice-president of BLF, the appellant, Bruce Goldman. The assignment was purportedly made to the appellant as consideration for a $60,000 loan to BLF, and as compensate for commissions amounting to approximately $38,000 he earned but never received. Further, the assignment to the appellant was not conditioned upon his payment of the debt owed by BLF to the plaintiffs. It is undisputed that BLF was insolvent in May 1998 and ceased operations in June 1998. There was no documentation of the amount that BLF allegedly owed to the appellant.

The plaintiffs subsequently commenced a separate action against BLF and obtained a default judgment against it in the principal sum of $340,849.01. The plaintiffs then commenced this action, inter alia, to set aside the assignment to the appellant as fraudulent. After a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the appellant.

Contrary to the appellant's contention, BLF, a defunct corporation, is not a necessary party to this action since the plaintiffs obtained a money judgment against it, and the challenged conveyance was absolute (see CPLR 1001[a][1], 1003; Prometheus Books v. Russica Book Art Shop, 105 A.D.2d 1138; Ranno v. Ranno, 2 Misc.2d 940).

Further, the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's determination the conveyance to the appellant was fraudulent (see AMEV Capital Corp v. Kirk, 180 A.D.2d 775, 776-777; Century 21 Constr. Corp. v. Rabolt, 143 A.D.2d 873; Polkowski v. Mela, 143 A.D.2d 260).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Braun Farms v. Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 15, 2002
296 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Braun Farms v. Goldman

Case Details

Full title:BRAUN FARMS, INC., et al., respondents, v. LEONARD GOLDMAN, defendant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 15, 2002

Citations

296 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
745 N.Y.S.2d 469

Citing Cases

Ruby Weston Manor v. Vidal

Only where the conveyance is absolute and the plaintiff has obtained a money judgment against the debtor or…

Riback v. Margulis

The Surrogate's Court properly determined that the speculative and conclusory allegations of the complaint…