Summary
In Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Ramos (38 AD3d 445, 445 [1st Dept 2007]), the Appellate Division, First Department defined "legally cognizable claims" for the enforcement of a money judgment by the criteria set forth in its earlier decision in Chase Manhattan Bank (Nat. Assn.) v 264 Water Street Assocs.
Summary of this case from Commissioner of the State Ins. Fund v. GrosmanOpinion
No. 604.
March 27, 2007.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen Smith, J.), entered February 3, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendants Ramos and J.M.R. Concrete of Long Island Corp. to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Brian R. Hoch, White Plains, for appellants.
Jan Ira Gellis, New York, for respondent.
Before: Tom, J.P., Williams, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
Despite efforts to mischaracterize this action as one for fraudulent conveyance, the court properly found that it is one to enforce a judgment, governed by the 20-year statute of limitations (CPLR 211 [b]), and thus timely commenced ( see Solow v Domestic Stone Erectors, 229 AD2d 312). Plaintiff's factual allegations, accepted as true and liberally construed as they must be at this procedural juncture ( see Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362, 366), sufficiently set forth legally cognizable claims against these defendants ( see Chase Manhattan Bank [N.A.] v 264 Water St. Assoc., 174 AD2d 504).