Court Opinion

ID: 9945524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:10:01.943578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:31.354124
License: Public Domain

Estate of Leon Tawil v Sutton
               2024 NY Slip Op 30575(U)
                   February 23, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 527569/2023
                Judge: Leon Ruchelsman
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                                                              INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

           SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
           COUNTY OF KINGS : CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL 8
           - -----------               ------ - --------- ------· -x
           ESTATE OF LEON TAWIL,
                                                                        Plaintiff,                 Decision and order

                                 - against -                                                    Index No. 527569/2023

           MEIR SUTTON, ISAAC SUTTON, ABRAHAM
           DUSHEY, arid lSS0 EAST 5TH LLC,
                                           De-fendants,                                             February 23, 2024
           - -·- - - - . . -.-.. - - - - -· - - - - - - -·-.. _ .. - - -·- - - -·- --------2{
           PRESENT: HON. LEON ROCHELSMAN                                                         Moti6n Seq. #1    &   #2

                    The defendants have moved and cross-moved seeking to dismiss

           the complaint pursuant to CPLR §3211 oh the grounds it fails to

           allege any causes of action.                             The plaintiff opposes the motion.

           Papers were submitted by the parties and arguments held.                                            After

           reviewing all the arguments this court how makes the following

           determination.

                    On February 9, 2016 Abraham Dushey obtained a judgement

           against Isaac Sutton in the amount of $741,287.20.                                           TQ satisfy

           the judgement, on September 27,                              2017 Isaac sold property loca,ted

            at 1580 East 5ti, Street in Kings county to Dushey.                                        The purchase

            price was-agreed upon as $1,650,000 arid the prope~ty ~as sold for

            $919, 119·. 47 which included a satisfaction of the amount Sutton

            owed Dushey satisfying the judgement.                                    Oh May 7,       2020 Dus.hey sold

            the property to Isaac's son Meir, the defendant                                         in this action.,
            :i:hrou,gh an ent:Lty calied 1580 East 5 th LLC for $'1; 700, doo.                                  .That

            amount was based upOn an ~pprai:Sal conducted by Wells Farg'ci Barik

            which loaned eighty percent of the purchase price and then

                                                                   1 of 15
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                             INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

           obtained a mortgage on the property.

                    The plaintiff has now instituted the within lawsuit.         The

           plaintiff, the estate of Leon Tawil, obtained a judgement against

           Isaac Sutton on June 29, 2022 in the amount of $3,254, 537 .4 0

           which remains unsatisfied.       That judgement was the result of a

           lawsuit Corrimenced in 2015.     The complaint alleges that the sale

           between Dushey and Meir Sutton was made to he1p        Isaac avoid
           paying its judgement to the plaintiff.        The compl 9 int alleges

           three Causes of action pursuant to the Debtor Creditor Law

           (§§273, 275, 276 and 278).       The defendants, the Suttons and

           Dushey have moved seeking to dismiss the law$uit on the grounds

           it fails to allege any valid causes of action.        As noted, the

           motions have been opposed.

                                       Conclusions of Law

                    It is well settled that upon a motion to dismiss the court

           must determine, accepting the allegations of the complaint as

           true, whether the party can succeed upon any reasonable view of

           those facts     (Perez v. Y & M Transportation Corpo.ration, 219 AD3d

           14 49;    196 NYS3d 145 [2d Dept., 2023]) .   Further, all the

           allegations in the complaint are deemed true and all reasoriable

           inferences .may .be drawn in favor of the. plaintiff (Archival Inc .. ,·.

           V. 177 Realty- Corp., 220 AD3d 909,. 198 NYS2d 567      [2d Dept. 1

           2023] i ~.   Whether the c::ompiaint will late+ svrvive a motion fol:'

           surrtmary judgment, or whether the plaintiff wil.l ultimately be

                                                2

                                              2 of 15
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                                      INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

           -able ·to p,rove its. c.la.im:-s, of course·, plays no part in. t:he

           cieterm:j.;nation of a pre-tjiscovery C.P-LR -~3.2)1 motion. t.o d.i,smiss

           .(see; Lam v. Weiss, 219 AD3d 713, 195 NYS3d 488               [2d Dept.,

           20231).
                 Pursuant to §2.73 cif the Debt.ar Creditor Law every conveyance

           made- by a: party which then render-s. the party inscilv.ent i=s

           fr·audulent without regard to intetit if the conveyance is made

           Without ·tair consideration ( Paragon v. Paragon, 164 AD3d 14 60, 84

           NY'S3d 582 [2d Dept., 2018]).            Further, .such transfers       are
           fraudul.ent if the transferor intende.d ._or believed the tr_ansferor

           woµ-ld i._ncur debts beyo.r:id his or her ab-ility to pay the:m. whE?n tl;l.ey

           ma·t.ured (Dept.or (:,re_d.i,.to"t Law §275.) or ev.en if fair consideration

           was present the trans-fer was made with. the intent to defraµd

            (Debtor Creditor Law §27.6).          Pursuant to Debtor Creditor Law §278

           ·any c:redi tor may have f ra-udulent conveyances set aside exc·ept

           aga:irtst any good. faith, :_purchaser for v_alue, which is. ciefin~q as

           ,.any- -pe.rson who te:nd_eretj -f ai;r considE?rati..o:n without ·-knowledge of

           any fraud    (.::,ee,   Cornmodi ty Futures T.rading Conimi::,::,ion   v .. Walsh,   l 7

           NY3d 162, 927'~YS2d 821 [2011]}.

                 The plaintif.f has -only oppos.ed ·the- motion seeking ·to dismiss

           ·oebto_r _Creditor _Law §_2i.76 and Debto.r Cr.editor Law §2.7H.          Thus, the

           motion s.eek:irtg- to dismiss any c-1.aims based upo.n Debtor Credi.to.r

           Law §2 7 3 and Debtor Crecii tor Law §275 is gr:anted;

                 The fraudulent transfer law contained -within the Debtor

                                                      3

                                                   3 of 15
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                                INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

           Creditor Law is designed to prevent debtors from avoiding the

           payment of their debts    (Leifer v. Murphy, 149.Misc 455, 267 NYS

           701 [Supreme Court Bronx County 19331).          Debtor Creditor Law

           former §27.6 states that "every conveyance made .         .   . with actual

           intent      . . to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or

           future creditors; is fraudulent"        (id),   Thus, a creditor must

           demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant

           had the actual intent to hinder, delay          or defraud creditors    (see,

           Jensen v. Jensen, 256 AD2d 1162, 682 NYS2d 77 4 [ 2d Dept., 1998 ]) .

            Since fraudulent or improper intent is difficult to prove,

           courts have developed 'badges of fraud' which can give rise to

           intent.     Badges of fraud include: ''a close relationship between

           the_parties to the alleged fraudulent transaction; a questionable

           transfer not in the usual course of business; inadequacy of the

           consideration; the transferorls knowledge Of the creditor's claim

           and the inability    to pay it; and retention of control of the
           property by the transferor after the conveyance1'         (Goldenberg v.

           Friedman, 191 AD3d 641, 141 NYS3d 111 [2d Dept., 2021]).

                 In this case, as notedi   the plaintiff first became a

           creditor bf Isaac on June 29; 2022 when a jury awarded the

           plaintiff a judgement against Isaac in the amount of

           $3254,547.40.

                 There are three overlapping rec:1sons the plaintiff cannot

           maintain any fraudulent conveyance claims against the defendants.

                                               4

                                            4 of 15
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                                 INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

                                        .                           .

                 First, the two transfers, from Isaac to Dushey and then

           Dushey to Meir all concluded two years before tll.e plaintiff

           obtained ariy judgement.    Tn fact,       the transfer from Isaac to

           Dushey occurred almost five years before the judgement was

           obtained.     It is true that a fraudulent conveyance can be found

           even where the debt was not in existence at the time of the

           conveyance.     Howeve:r:, all cases that have relied on that

           proposition·concern ed events far closer in time.            Tn Nonas v.

           Romantini, 271 A:D2d 292, 706 NYS2d 109 fl"t Dept., 20001 the

           court £01.ihd a fraudulent conveyance could exist because when the

           conveyance was made "there were ample indications that such

           obligation was being discussed at or about the time of s,uch

           transfer'' (id) .   In First Keystone Consultants T:hc. ,

           v. Schlesinger Electrical Contractors Inc., 871 F. Supp2d 103

           [E.D.N.Y. 2012] the court h.eld conveyances could be fraudulent

           when they wer·e made within weeks of arbitration appearances and

           arbitratio.n rulings against an entity, KFC, that was the subject

           6f those arbitratioris.    The court concluded that "the timing and

           circumstan.:::E:s of :these transactions constitute clear and

           convinbing evidence that FKC acted With intent to defraud its

           creditors'; (id).    Similarly, In Cathay Bank v. Bonilla, 2023 WL

           6812274     [E,D.N.Y. 20231 the court found a fraudulent conveyance

           existed, when among other factors, a transfer          to◊-k   place one

           month after :the transferor was named in a lawsuit.

                                                  5

                                             5 of 15
[* 5]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                                INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

                 In this case, although Isaac was aware of a lawsuit filed in
           2015, the transfers took place in 2017 and 2022.            A mere lawsl1it

           filed, the merits of which required a jury determination ye.ars

           later, cannot support a finding the transfers were fraudulent.

           Moreover, this reality, without any other factors is insufficient

           tb establish a fraudulent transfer.

                 In    truth, as not'ed, this argument is really one factor when
           assessing whether badges of fraud exist.             Indeed, Federal courts

           include additional factors that can be utilized to evaluate

           whether badges of fraud support the intent necessary to establish

           a fraudulent conveyance,        including "the general chronology of the

           events and transactions under inquiry" {see; Kim v. Ji Sung Yoo,
                                       .              .

           311 F.Supp3d 598 [S.D.N.Y. 2018]).             That additipnal factor is not
           found in any appellate decision in New Ybrk but is found in lower

           court decisions     ( ~ , Nixon: v. Jackson, 2009 WL 1574117 [Supreme

           Court Nassau County 200.9] and ATSCO LTD. et al v. Haryati

           Zainudin Swanson; 2004 WL 5329667 [Supreme Court New York County

           2004]).      The allusion to this additional factor in Nonas         (supra)

           and the strength ot weakness of its relevance demands its

           consideration along with an examination of all the badges of

           fraud.

                 Second, evaluating the badges of fraud necessary

           demonstrates tha1: plaintiff has not adequately pled intent of a

           fraudulent conveyance.      The plaintiff asserts the two

                                                  6

                                                6 of 15
[* 6]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                          INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

           transactions must be viewed as one composite transaction.        The

           court will address that argument, however, to maintain a

           fraudulent conveyance action premised on badges of fraud,

          requires, first,   a close relationship between the parties to the

           alleged fraudulent tr:ansaction.    The two transactions involve

           Isaac and Dushey and oushey and Meir.     While. Isaac
                                                              . . and Meir
                                                                       . . I as
                                                                              ...

           fathek and son, obviously maintain a close relationship~       there is
           no such relationship with Dushey.      The complaint states that

           Isaac and Dushey were friends .fo.r twenty years (Complaint, 'l4

           [NYSCEF Doc. No. 8]}.   However, Dushey sued Isaac ahd obtained a

           judgement against l:lim in an action in Kings County entitled

           Abraham Dushey, et al. v. Isaac Sutton,     Index No. 51025/2015 and

           secured a judgemen:t against Isaac for $741,287 .DO.     Thus, the

           sort of "close'; relationship required to maintain a fraudulent

           conveyance action premised on badges of fraud does not

           exist here.
                                                        ✓      .

                 Next, plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to suggest

           that the transactions were questionable transfers not in the

           usual course of business.   For example, "a corporation does not

           usually transfer money to; or for the benefit of, people who

           provide ho consideration. Nor does a corporation properly prepare

           and file W-2 forms for people who are not employed by the

           c::orporation'; ( see, Federal National Mortgage Association v.

           Olympia Mortgage Corporation,   792 F.Supp2d 645 IE.D.N, Y. 2011]).

                                              T

                                           7 of 15
[* 7]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                                INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

           Moreover, a transaction made with an unusual amount of secrecy or
           made with efforts to conceal thi2 transaction from others

           inclU9ing debtors principles are further indications the

           transaction was not made in the ordinary course of business (Tn

           re 45 John Lofts LLC; 650 BR 602 [United States Bankruptcy Court
                                           .             .

           Southern District of New York 2023]),

                 The first transfer was made to satisfy a debt and cart hardly

           be classified as improper in any way.             There is also no indicia

           that Isaac preferred certain creditors to the detriment of the

           plaintiff and that such preference constitutes fraud (see,

           Priestly v. Partmedix Inc., 18 F. Supp3d 4 86 [S. D. N. Y. 2014] ) .       At

           the time of the conveyance, Dushey had a judgement against Isaac

           and plaintiff did riot.    There can be no fraudulent preference-s

           paying the debt owed to D11shey thereby frustrating the

           plaintiff's claim that would not ripen for five years.             The

           unpredictability of that claim, in 2017, negates any assertions

           the transfer to Dushey .somehow consisted of any improper

           pre£erence (see, In re Sharp International Corp., 4.03 F3d 43 [2d

           Cir. 2005 J l   The second transfer did hot involve Isaac the

           debtor and in isolation was not done in any unusual manner to

           raise any badge of fraud at alJ.          The transfer was for full

           cohs-ideratioh, was made with a publicly recognized bank as

           mortgagee and was not done secretly or hastily.             The fact the

           property may not have been publicly available to other potential

                                                 8

                                               8 of 15
[* 8]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                                           INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

          purchas·ers does not me-an the· conveyance·- was fraudulent in ·any

          -manner.

                  Next, inadequacy of the consip.eration is. considered a

          ·\\.particularly · impottan_t,,. badge- establishing a: fraudulent

           conveyance (Axginc Corporation v.                     Plaza Automall Ltd., 2022 WL

           21354 74 [E. ·i:). N. Y. ·2022'] ") .   While the plaintif·f acknowledges that

           inadequacy o"f consider:atio n is a badge o:f fraud nec.e-ssary to

           establish intent (see, Memorandum of Law in Oppositipn, page 7

           [ NYSC~)F Doc. · No . 6·5] ) the: pJ_ai"n ti f·f argu(;!·s that inadequacy· 6 f

           consid~rati.on is not rieces-sary to· establish                 a: claim .purSµq.nt t,o
           Debtor Creditor Law former §276.                      It is true that where actual

           iptent to defraud· -has been proven then th.e adequa~y _of

           consideration is not relevant to: set as.ide the conveyance {.filffi.,

           In re Sharp Internation·a l Corp., supra).                    However, where there 1-s

           no indi_c,ic1 _of actual i·ntent ·-1;1.no instead the pl-aintiff seeks to

           establi§h fr~ud by reliance upon badges 0£ fraud tben surely the

           inadequacy .of corrs.iqerat-,io n _i~       i3.   £-actor that -m,tist be considered

           (see,. Wall Street Associates v. Brodsky_, 257 :AD.2:d 5_2_Q, 6$ 4 NYS2d

           244   [lst Dept., 19:99]) In Wall street, the                 court explained that

           "DCL "§ -276, unlike.· sect.i:Ons' 27.3 and 275, addres.ses actual -fraud,

           as opposed to constructive fraµd,                     and does not require proof of

           unfair c·on·sicteratio n or i.ns·bl ven-cy ... Due to the difficulty of·

           proving actual intent t,o hincter·, cielay, or def r~ud creditqrs, the

           ple.ader is allowed to re1y on "badges of fraud" to support his

                                                             9

                                                      9 of 15
[* 9]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                                  INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

           case, i.e., circumstance s so. c·ommo.nly as.soc::ii;l_ted with fprndµlent
           trans.rers "that t_heir presence gives. rise to an inference of

           interit" ... Among such c"ircu:mstaitce s are: a clos·e. rel·ationship

           t.,etwe.en- the parties to the a.lJeged. fraudulent transactiqn;· a

           questionable. tri::l.nsfer not in the usual course bf business;

           inadequacy .of the ·cons·iderati-o n; the tra-risferor' s knowledg.e of

           the er.editor's c-laim and the inability to pay it; a.nd re.tention

           of control of the property by the transferor after the
           <;::-9nveyance"   (id) .

                 T.he ,adequacy .of co.nsidera_tio.ri .. conc$.rning .the tr~nsfE;ixs in

           this case i$ apparent.        Indeed,
                                              .  the
                                                  .  plaintiff
                                                         .     _does not even

           question their a_dequacy ·other than tci no.te the second transaction

           was not arms..:..alength because the price wcis virtually the same as
           the 2017 transfer and the property was riot listed fo-r sale on the

           open m,a:rket.-     However, those facto:.ts do not impugn adequate

           consideration at a.11.       In any event, those objections are equally

           _u_navailing and .fail to :raise- any question of fraud.          While the

           two transfers, thre$ years apart,           were for almost identici:ll
           prices,. tha_t does nc:it evince any questi.on of fraud.          This .is

           :particulariy· tru·e where. :ther~- is no quest.ion fair -c.or;isideratio n

           was ex-changed and Well.a Fargq Bank provided an appraisal arid

           ,obta:·ined a mortgage in the second trap-$~ctipn.         Any qµestio.n in

           thi-s reg~rd is_ sheer speculation.          Moreover:,- the -fact the

           property may not have beeri offered to sale to others does not

                                                  10

                                               10 of 15
[* 10]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                           INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

          undermine. the adequacy of consideration.     That is an irrelevant

          fact that has no bearing upon this litigation.

                The next badge of fraud is the transferor's knowledge of the

          creditor's claim and the inability to pay it.       This badge is

          entirely absent in these transactions and to be sure the badge

          makes little sense considering the specifics facts.          DUshey as

           one of the transferors was never a debtor and whether Dushey knew
           of Isaac's debts is entirely irrelevant.      As the court observed

           in In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, 2017 WL

           8-2391 [S. D. N. Y. 2017] "when considering whether a debtor had an

           actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud its crE'!ditors, courts

           focus on the intent of the transferor not on the intent of the

           transferee" (id).   Thus, the intent of Dushey or Meir as

           transferees is entirely irrelevant.

                 The last badge of fraud demonstrating intent recited by New

           York cases is whether there is any retention of control of the

           property by the transferor after the conveyance.       Th this case

           that badge. Of fraud is not even asserted.     There is no dispute

           that after Isaac transferred the property to Dushey he did not

           ma.in ta in any retention Cir control ov_er the property.    Likewise,

           upon Dushey's sale of· the property to Meir, again,     Isaac retained

           no control over the property.

                 As noted, the Federal courts include further badges of

           fraud, namely, the financial condition of the party sought to be

                                              ll

                                           11 of 15
[* 11]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                                  INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

           charged both before and after the transaction in question, the

           existence or cumulative effect of a pattern or series of

           transactions or course of conduct after the incurring of debt,

           onset of financial difficulties, or pendency or threat of suits

           by creditors c:rnd the general chronology of the events and

           trarisactioris under inquiry (see, Emerson Electric Company v.

           Asset Management Associates of New York, 2023 WL 4850528

           [E.   n. N. Y. 2023]) .   These badges of fraud are also absent in this

           case.

                   The financial cortdi tion    of the party sought 1:o be charged,
           Isaac in this case, is similar to the transferor's knowledge of

           the creditor's claim and the inability to pay it.            That badge has

           adequately been discus·sed.         The next bad.ge, a series of

           transactions will be dealt with presently regarding the

           collapsing doctrine.         The last badge, the chronology of events

           surely provides no indicia that any intent existed to

           frauciulently convey the property.           As already explained, a

           lawsuit was comrri.enced against Is.a:ac .in 2015.       In 2016 Dushey

           obtained a judgement against Isaac.             As a result of that

           judgement Isaac sold his property to Du.Shey to satisfy the debt

           that arose from the 2016 lawsuit.            The further transaction from

           Dushey to Meir in 2020 did not involve Ts.aac at all and the

           c:hronology of these events does not serve to indicate any fraud ..

           The mere fact the 2015 lawsuit was concluded with a judgement

                                                   12

                                                12 of 15
[* 12]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                           INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

           against Isaac in 2022, a full two years after the property was

           sold to Meir fails to allege any fraudulent conveyances in any

          manner.      Thus, considering all the badges of fraud, the. only one

           that could possibly be utilized to infer fraudulent intent is the

           fact Isaac and Meir are related to each other.        However, that one

           possible badge is entirely inadequate.       As the court Observed in

          In re Tops Holding II Corporation,        646 BR 617 [United States

           Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York 2022] ''the

           presence or absence of any single badge of fraud is not

           conclusive;     The proper inquiry is whether the badges of fraud

           are present, not wh?ther some facts are absent.        Although the

           presence of a single facto'r, i.e. a badge of f:r-aud, may cast

           suspicion .Oh the transferor's intent, the confluence of several

           in one transaction generally provides conclusive evidence of          an
           actual intent to defraud"    (id).   Thus, when no badges of fraud

           are found no such intent to engage in any fraudµlent conveyance

           has been presented.

                 Lastly, the plaintiff asserts the collapsing doctrine can

           enable both transactions to be viewed as one overall transaction

           wherein Isaac really transferred the property to his son

           establishing a fraudulent conveyance.

                 This doctrine permits mµltiple trarisactions to be viewed as

           steps in a single transaction when analyzing a fraudulent

           conveyance allegation (HBE Leasing Corporation v. Frank, 48 F.3d

                                                B

                                            13 of 15
[* 13]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                                        INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

          623. [-2d Cir. 1995]) -.      Fo-r example in HBE the court explain'ed the

          doctrin.e would apply wh·ere ~'one tran.s-f~J:"_ee gives fair v-~l_µe to

          the debtor in exchange for the debtors properiy, and the debtor

          then gratuitously trans.fers the proceeds of the first exchange tc.i

           a s~c:c.ind transferee. The first transferee thereby receives the

          d.e-bt.or:s prope.rty, and the se.cond trar:i.sfer~e
                                                     .         rece!ive.fi· the
                                                                           ..

          ··¢.ons.-idf,!ra-i:ion, wh11'3, th_e debtor retains -nothiri.g" (id:) .•     Thus, for

           this doctrine to apply the party seeking .its applicability must

          demonstrate t!J.at the qoqsideration the debtor gave the first
           transferee was th:e:n ;:r~convey~d by the debtor for less.. than fair

          ,c.oris-ideration or with· art actual intent to defraud cred-i.to,r~ .

          .Howeve.r,. if the df.!btor ,does not transf.e_r the conside,ra-:t,io.n. but

          rather keeps it then the first transfer is not fraudulent.

           Furthe.r, "the initial transferee must have a,ctual or construct:Lve

          _lcn-owle<;i_ge   of the entire .scheme that re_nders the exchange- with the

          ·.tjep.tor f:raudulent"     ("se'e, In re M. -Fabrikant    &.   Sons   Inc., ·.3-94 BR
           721 [United States Ba·nkruptcy Court s:o.:uthern bistri.ct o_f" N.ew York

           2>ooa J ) •
                   In this case none. of the elements o.f the collapsing doctrine

          .are present.         Firs·t, the debtor di"d ·not. gratuitously tran.s.f er the

          ·p_r-oc.eeq_s to any t.hird pa-rty.     Rather_, s·ome of the proc~~ds were

           used to s:ati-sf.y a debt ow·ea to Dushey and the remainder of the

           proceeds were :retained by Isaac.              Second, th.ere is. no allegation

           that Dusheyi tbci initial ttansferee, had any tnbwledge of any

                                                     l4

                                                  14 of 15
[* 14]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 08:58 AM                                      INDEX NO. 527569/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

          .scheme· ·to defraud. the plaintiff.            t:-3'-or could Dus.hey possibly have

          .a_ny sue}} kJ:"l.Qwledge of a!l.y int_ent t:o defx;a_ud Isa_ac s_ince .nq

           j\idge::inent had even been obtained arid thus. there was ho fraudulent

          .a.ctlvi.ty.   Es·sentia1ly, the plaintiff argues that in 2017 Isaa.c

           thought that perh,aps he may owe the plaintiff money ciue                to a
           iawsui t commenced. two years ea·rlier and embarked upon a ~rnheine-.

           Pursuant t.o. this -scl:1.eme Isaac wo.uld sell prope·rty to Dushey (to

           satisfy a debt) then wait three years and allow Dushey to sell

           the property to h:i,.-s son Meil;' for full v-alue be.lievin:9 that at

           some future point he rnay los-e the-. lawsuit to .the plainti!f..               Even

           if all those facts are true that do.e-s not atiege any frauciulent

           conveyance f9.r the rea·9:ons e_xplain.ed.           Therefo--r.et the motion

           seeking_ to dismiss all causes of action :pursuant to Debtor_

           Credi tor Law ·§27 6 is granted,        Conseque·ntly , ·there cah b"e no

           claims against Met.t pursuant to Debtor Creditor Law §278 a.nd the

           motion seeking to dismiss all those claims is likewise. granted.

           T.hus, • the motions ~eek:i.:ng tq qismis-s the entire complaint is

           .fully granted.
                                                                ..;
                 .So ordered.

                                          ENTER:

           DATED:   Febr:uary ,?3, 2024
                    Brooklyn N.Y.                Bon.
                                                 JSC

                                                    1_5

                                                15 of 15
[* 15]