From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Madison Hudson Assocs. v. Neumann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 24, 2004
4 A.D.3d 257 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2928.

Decided February 24, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered August 8, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motions for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Sanford M. Goldman, for Plaintiffs-Respondents.

Brian M. Cogan, Richard Gabriele, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.


Issues of fact exist, precluding summary judgment, inter alia, the specific terms of a joint venture agreement between the parties; the possible modification thereof by the November 13 letter agreement; and the conduct of the Achenbaum defendants. With respect to the alleged fraudulent conveyance, the determination of insolvency, or what constitutes fair consideration under Debtor and Creditor Law § 273, is generally one of fact to be determined by the circumstances of a particular case ( Matter of American Inv. Bank v. Marine Midland Bank, 191 A.D.2d 690, 691-92).

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

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


Summaries of

Madison Hudson Assocs. v. Neumann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 24, 2004
4 A.D.3d 257 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Madison Hudson Assocs. v. Neumann

Case Details

Full title:MADISON HUDSON ASSOCIATES LLC, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. JOSEPH…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 24, 2004

Citations

4 A.D.3d 257 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
771 N.Y.S.2d 653

Citing Cases

Rosamilia v. Lynch

( See, Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320.) The conflicting evidence in the record concerning whether…

E. Concrete Materials, Inc. v. Derosa Tennis Contractors, Inc.

However, the six checks from DeRosa Sports to DeRosa Tennis that were specifically identified as payment on…