From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sorenson v. 257/117 Realty, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 28, 2009
62 A.D.3d 618 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 677.

May 28, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered April 7, 2008, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, cancelled the notice of pendency, and imposed sanctions against plaintiff and his attorney in the amount of $2,500 each, and costs and attorneys' fees in the amount of $16,386, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Sigurd A. Sorenson, New York, appellant pro se.

Balber Pickard Maldonado Van Der Tuin, PC., New York (Roger Juan Maldonado of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


In this action alleging fraudulent conveyance, plaintiff failed to establish "actual intent, as distinguished from intent presumed in law, to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors" (Debtor and Creditor Law § 276; see PA. Bldg. Co. v Elwyn D. Lieberman, Inc., 227 AD2d 277; O'Brien-Kreitzberg Assoc., v K.P., Inc., 218 AD2d 519). Inasmuch as the conveyance of the subject building was specifically subject to plaintiff's rights in a related fraud action ( see Sorenson v Bridge Capital Corp., 52 AD3d 265, appeal dismissed 12 NY3d 748), there was no showing of fraud or intent to defraud because the parties to the conveyance had taken steps to ensure that any potential judgment would be satisfied ( see Grace Plaza of Great Neck v Heitzler, 2 AD3d 780).

The claim under Debtor and Creditor Law § 273 of the statute was also properly dismissed as the building was transferred for "other good and valuable consideration," which included the cost of completion of the building, and the conveyance did not render defendants insolvent.

The notice of pendency was properly cancelled once the court determined that plaintiff's claims were baseless ( see Gallagher Removal Serv. v Duchnowski, 179 AD2d 622, 623). The lack of merit to this action warranted the court's imposition of sanctions, costs and attorney's fees ( 22 NYCRR 130-1.1).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them without merit.


Summaries of

Sorenson v. 257/117 Realty, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 28, 2009
62 A.D.3d 618 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Sorenson v. 257/117 Realty, LLC

Case Details

Full title:SIGURD A. SORENSON, Appellant, v. 257/117 REALTY, LLC, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 28, 2009

Citations

62 A.D.3d 618 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 4163
881 N.Y.S.2d 43

Citing Cases

Sorenson v. Wolfson

On May 28, 2009, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Sorenson's complaint in the fraudulent…

Welz v. Brown

As the instant action to have the deed declared void and for the return of the real property was commenced…