Opinion
Nos. 1265 1266 Index No. 151267/22 Case Nos. 2022-3230 2022-3231
12-19-2023
In the Matter of YH Lex Estates LLC, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Ranee A. Bartolacci et al., Respondents-Appellants, Nir Meir, Respondent.
Rottenstreich Farley Bronstein Fisher Potter Hodas LLP, New York (Dan Rottenstreich of counsel), for appellants. Susman Godfrey LLP, New York (Mark H. Hatch Miller of counsel), for respondent.
Rottenstreich Farley Bronstein Fisher Potter Hodas LLP, New York (Dan Rottenstreich of counsel), for appellants.
Susman Godfrey LLP, New York (Mark H. Hatch Miller of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Singh, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, O'Neill Levy, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joel M. Cohen, J.), entered June 6, 2022, granting the petition and requiring respondents to pay petitioner $13,903,573.02, consisting of $12,587,387.52 in principal and $1,315,985.50 in pre-judgment interest, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, entered May 3, 2022, same court and Justice, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
Respondents are incorrect that summary judgment was unavailable on a fraudulent conveyance claim under Debtor and Creditor Law § 273(a). In a proper case, the requisite fraudulent intent can be established on summary judgment (see e.g. 5706 Fifth Ave., LLC v Louzieh, 108 A.D.3d 589 [2d Dept 2013]).
Contrary to respondents' arguments, the finding of intent under Debtor and Creditor Law § 273 relates solely to the transferor's intent, not that of respondent transferees (id.; Kashan v Kosoff, 112 A.D.2d 350, 351 [2d Dept 1985]).
Judgment in the amount that respondents actually received was the appropriate remedy under the statute (Sullivan v Kodsi, 373 F.Supp.2d 302, 309 [SD NY 2005]). The court did not abuse its discretion in setting the date for the calculation of prejudgment interest (see Matter of Mogil v Building Essentials, Inc., 129 A.D.3d 1378, 1380 [1st Dept 2015]).
Finally, we do not reach respondents' argument, made for the first time in reply on this appeal that respondents were mere "conduits" for the transfer. In any event, it was definitively established that respondents received and had dominion over the transferred funds (cf. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v Porco, 75 N.Y.2d 840, 842 [1990]).