Case ID: ad3d_119/html/0402-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Aurateq Systems International, Inc., Appellant, v David Marvisi, Respondent.
    [988 NYS2d 482]
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J), entered May 8, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In January 2006, the parties entered into a stipulation in connection with an action for breach of contract pursuant to which plaintiff released defendant from “any claim” it has or “may have” against him. The stipulation bars the instant action alleging fraud and seeking to “set aside and recover fraudulent conveyances” (see Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 76 AD3d 310 [1st Dept 2010], affd 17 NY3d 269 [2011]). We note that the alleged fraudulent conveyances were made well in advance of the execution of the release, and that there is no “objective evidence” that the parties intended the release to be of limited scope (see Johnson v Lebanese Am. Univ., 84 AD3d 427, 432 [1st Dept 2011] [emphasis omitted]).

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Acosta, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter, JJ.