You are here: / / THE “PARTICULARITY” PLEADING-REQUIREMENTS FOR A FRAUD CAUSE...
, , ,

THE “PARTICULARITY” PLEADING-REQUIREMENTS FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION DO NOT APPLY TO CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE PURSUANT TO THE DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, because a fraudulent conveyance action does not require an intent to defraud, the specificity requirements in the CPLR for pleading a fraud cause of action do not apply. Here plaintiff alleged the defective design and construction of a condominium:

Pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 273, a conveyance that renders the conveyor insolvent is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to actual intent, if the conveyance was made without fair consideration (see Debtor and Creditor Law § 273 …). Pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 274, a conveyance is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to actual intent when it is “made without fair consideration when the person making it is engaged or is about to engage in a business or transaction for which the property remaining in his [or her] hands after the conveyance is an unreasonably small capital” … . Section 270 of the Debtor and Creditor Law defines “creditor” as any “person having any claim, whether matured or unmatured, liquidated or unliquidated, absolute, fixed, or contingent.”

Here, the complaint’s fifth cause of action sufficiently states cognizable claims alleging fraudulent conveyances pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 and 274. Since valid claims of violations of Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 and 274 do not require proof of actual intent to defraud, such claims are not required to be pleded with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b) … . Further, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that it is a creditor of the sponsor since it asserted a breach of contract cause of action against the sponsor, even though said cause of action was unmatured at the time of the alleged conveyances … . Board of Mgrs. of E. Riv. Tower Condominium v Empire Holdings Group, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06587, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

You might also like
IN THIS EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER DISPUTE ABOUT A HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM CONTRIBUTION, THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EACH PAYCHECK WITH THE PREMIUM DEDUCTION WAS NOT AN INDEPENDENT WRONG (SECOND DEPT).
PROTECTIVE ORDER DELAYING DISCOVERY UNTIL 45 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL GRANTED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS WAIVED IF NOT ASSERTED IN THE ANSWER OR A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, IT MAY BE ADDED TO AN ANSWER AMENDED BY LEAVE OF COURT (SECOND DEPT).
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, ALTHOUGH THE LOCAL CODE REQUIRED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO KEEP SIDEWALKS IN GOOD REPAIR, IT DID NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON THE PROPERTY OWNER (SECOND DEPT).
PROTECTIVE ORDER VACATED UPON EXPEDITED REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).
REFEREE’S FINDINGS WERE BASED UPON HEARSAY PROVIDED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT OPENED THE DRIVER’S-SIDE DOOR OF HIS PARKED CAR WITHOUT MAKING SURE IT WAS SAFE TO DO SO, A VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, AND PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO AVOID STRIKING DEFENDANT’S CAR; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE RAISED PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK FLAG OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED DID NOT ABUT DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY SEVERAL FEET OF THE FLAG EXTENDED IN FRONT OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY; THE VILLAGE CODE MANDATES THAT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER’S MAINTAIN SIDEWALKS IN A SAFE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY MAINTAINED THE ABUTTING PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK IN A SAFE CONDITION OR THAT ANY FAILURE TO DO SO WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A DOCTOR ORDERED THE RESTRAINT... SELLER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT...