From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ruderman v. Adames

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 6, 1996
224 A.D.2d 222 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 6, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.).


We affirm, although for reasons other than those stated by the IAS Court. The severance and vacation payments to defendants were on account of "antecedent debt" under Debtor and Creditor Law § 15 (6-a). Nevertheless, dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action was proper. The statute on which plaintiff sues (Debtor and Creditor Law § 15 [6-a]) allows recovery only of voluntary transfers by the insolvent debtor. Here, the debtor owed the money to the employees in compensation for services rendered, and indeed, would have been criminally liable under Labor Law § 198-c had it not made the payments. Thus, it cannot be said the transfer was voluntary ( see, Gillman v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 73 N.Y.2d 1, 18).

We find no Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 preemption because the administration of a benefit plan is not implicated.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Ruderman v. Adames

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 6, 1996
224 A.D.2d 222 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Ruderman v. Adames

Case Details

Full title:JEROLD R. RUDERMAN, as Assignee for Benefit of Creditors of GEER DUBOIS…

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

Date published: Feb 6, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 222 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 149