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and do not know the subsequent disposition of this case nor whether the effect of the opinion has been overruled or superceded by other law.

Ostashko v. Zuritta-Teks, Ltd.,
2003.C02.0001279 (2d Cir. 11/03/2003)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

03-7187

2003.C02.0001279

November 3, 2003

TANYA OSTASHKO, PLAINTIFF-COUNTER-DEFENDANT-APPELLEE,
v.
ZURITTA-TEKS, LTD., DEFENDANT-COUNTER-CLAIMANT-APPELLANT, VLADIMIR YAKOVLEVICH OSTASHKO, DEFENDANT-COUNTER-CLAIMANT, COMMERCIAL BANK OF INFORMATICS, COMPUTING TECHNIQUE DEVELOPMENT BANK INFORMTECHNIKA, DEFENDANT.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Ross, J.).

Appearing For Appellant: Ira Finkelstein, Harnik & Finkelstein, New York, NY (Stephen M. Harnik, Of Counsel, on the brief)

Appearing For Appellee: Howard M. File, Staten Island, NY

Present: Hon. James L. Oakes, Hon. Dennis Jacobs, Hon. Rosemary S. Pooler, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3rd day of November, two thousand three.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

This appeal involves the consent judgment entered after Vladimir Yakovlevich Ostashko defaulted on a loan from the Commercial Bank of Informatics, Computing Technique Development Bank Informtechnika. Zuritta-Teks, Ltd. ("Zuritta"), assignee of that judgment, appeals from the district court's conclusion that the consent judgment constituted a fraudulent conveyance in violation of New York Debt. & Cred. Law § 276 ("NYDCL") and a constructive fraud in violation of NYDCL §§ 273, 275. Zuritta appeals also the district court's remedy and its finding that Vladimir violated an injunction imposed in New York Supreme Court. Familiarity is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

This Court reviews the district court's factual findings following a bench trial with great deference and does not set them aside unless they are "clearly erroneous." Scribner v. Summers, 84 F.3d 554, 557 (2d Cir. 1996). The district court's legal conclusions, as well as its resolution of mixed questions of law and fact, are reviewed de novo. Id.

For the reasons substantially stated by the district court, the consent judgment constituted a fraudulent conveyance in violation of NYDCL § 276. It is therefore unnecessary to review the district court's conclusion that the consent judgment also constituted a constructive fraud. We have considered Zuritta's remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive.

The judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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.