New York

Warning: The following opinion is provided for purposes of discussion only. We have not Shepardized™ this opinion, and do not know the subsequent disposition of this case nor whether the effect of the opinion has been overruled or superceded by other law.

1205-15 First Ave. Associates, LLC v. McDonough,
2004.NY.0004486 (N.Y.App.Div. 05/13/2004)

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT

3638- 3638A

2004 NYSlipOp 00453, 2004.NY.0004486

May 13, 2004

1205-15 FIRST AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL MCDONOUGH, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, "JOHN DOE," ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Belkin Burdin Wenig & Goldman, Llp, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for appellant.

Hartman, Ule, Rose & Ratner, Llp, New York (David Ratner of counsel), for respondent.

Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Lerner, Marlow, JJ.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered August 12, 2003, which dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 22, 2003, granting defendant's dismissal motion and denying plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The fraud causes of action were not sufficiently pleaded in accordance with CPLR 3016(b), failing to set forth specific facts or details of alleged misrepresentation as to the status of defendant's tenancy (see Glickman v Alper, 236 AD2d 230, 231), and the proposed amended complaint failed to correct that deficiency. Defendant's rent-stabilized lease, executed subsequent to the filing of a notice of pendency, was not voidable as a fraudulent conveyance. Plaintiff was not a creditor entitled to relief under the Fraudulent Conveyance Act (see Debtor and Creditor Law art 10). This was not a "sweetheart lease" because it did not give defendant special privileges with regard to subletting, assigning or primary residence, which would be void as against public policy and the rent regulation statutes and code (cf. Rima 106 v Alvarez, 257 AD2d 201). Defendant was not an employee of the landlord who allegedly made the fraudulent conveyance.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

The legal opinions are a matter of public record (that's how we got them), and as such there can be no defamation for republishing them. Sometimes, however, legal opinions are reversed, vacated, or significantly modified, etc., and we do not discover this fact until somebody points it out to us. As we do not desire to publish inaccurate or outdated information, if a legal opinion has been reversed, vacated, or significantly modified, please advise us of this fact immediately, by fax to (877) 698-0678 or you may also send regular postal correspondence to Riser Adkisson LLP at 1827 Powers Ferry Road, Building One, Suite 200, Atlanta GA 30339.