Opinion
October 15, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
Plaintiff obtained a judgment against a professional corporation of which defendant-respondent was a principal, and commenced this action to compel the individual defendant-respondent to satisfy that judgment. While both parties speak in terms of piercing the corporate veil, the action is more properly characterized as one to set aside an allegedly fraudulent conveyance. For the reason that plaintiff had failed to come forward with evidence of deception intentionally practiced to frustrate the legal rights of another (Southern Indus. v Jeremias, 66 A.D.2d 178, 181), summary judgment was properly granted.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.