From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barristers Abstract Corporation v. Caulfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 18, 1994
203 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 18, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly determined that the plaintiff has established a triable issue of fact with respect to whether or not the real property in question was transferred with actual intent to defraud it (see, Debtor and Creditor Law § 276).

The appellant's assertion that the plaintiff's cause of action is time-barred is without merit. For a cause of action based upon a claim of actual intent to defraud pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 276 Debt. Cred., the six-year limitations period of CPLR 213 (8), as read in light of the two-year discovery rule set forth in CPLR 203 (f [now g]), is controlling (see, McGuinness v Standard Drywall Corp., 193 A.D.2d 518; Piedra v Vanover, 174 A.D.2d 191, 194). Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Barristers Abstract Corporation v. Caulfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 18, 1994
203 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Barristers Abstract Corporation v. Caulfield

Case Details

Full title:BARRISTERS ABSTRACT CORPORATION, Respondent, v. THOMAS W. CAULFIELD et…

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

Date published: Apr 18, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
610 N.Y.S.2d 555

Citing Cases

Weil v. Long Island Savings Bank, FSB

N.Y. Debt. Cred. Law § 276 has a six year statute of limitations. See Barristers Abstract Corp. v. Caulfield,…

SOSA v. MEYERS

It is well settled that under CPLR 213 (8) an action to recover damages "based on actual fraud must generally…