SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK HON. STEPHEN A. BUCARIA. Order to Show Cause... X Affidavit in Opposition... X Rep ly Affirmation...

Transcription

1 SHORT FORM ORDER Present: SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK HON. STEPHEN A. BUCARIA Justice DIMITRIOS KOSTOPOULOS and HELLENIC REALTY CORP. Plaintiffs TRIAL/lAS, PART 6 NASSAU COUNTY INEX No /07 MOTION DATE: Dec. 12, 2007 Motion Sequence # 001 -against- GRA YCLIFF CONSTRUCTION and RESTORATION CORP., GEORGE ARAKIS KYRAKI STYLIANOU GREENWICH DESIGN ARCHITECTS, INC. and VITAL Y SONKIN Defendants. The following papers read on this motion: Order to Show Cause... X Affidavit in Opposition... X Rep ly Affirmation... X This motion, by plaintiffs, brought on by order to show cause, for an order Pursuant to Civil Practice Law & Rule 6201 (3) and 6210 granting an Order of Attachment of the assets of Graycliff Construction and Restoration Corp. and of the real propert

2 is determined as hereinafter set forth. located at 22 Ridge Drive East, Roslyn, New York which is currently in the joint names ofthe defendant, Kyriaki Stylianou a principal of GraycliffConstruction and Restoration Corp., and the defendant Vitaly Sonkin, in order to prevent the defendants from frustrating the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, by assigning, disposing of encumbering or secreting the aforementioned assets, or removing them from the State, and Pursuant to Civil Practice Law & Rule ~6214 directing the Sheriff of the County ofn assau to take into its actual custody all propert capable of delivery, including the 2005 GMC SUV bearing license plate number NY DBS 8689 and registered in the name ofthe defendant Kyriaki Stylianou, and to collect and receive all debts owing the defendants, as wil satisfy $ , the total amount of the plaintiffs' claims, together with probable interest, costs, and Sheriff s fees and expenses and for such other and further relief as to this Court shall deem just and proper Chronologically, a one- family residence, located at 22 Ridge Drive East, Roslyn, New York("subjectpropert"), was owned by the defendant George Arhakis and his wife, Kyriaki Stylianou prior to June 28, On that date, the subject propert was transferred to the defendant Sonkin and then deeded out to the defendant Sonkin and Stylianou. Various liens and judgments are docketed against the defendant Arhakis: $1 485 on November ; NJ State Tax lien of$ on June 2, 2005; $546 on February ; $1 200 on Januar 2005; and $1,484 on June The subject premises continue to be the residence of the defendants Arhakis and Stylianou and the principal place of business of the defendant Graycliff. The defendant Sonkin is the principal of the defendant Greenwich, and the defendant Stylianou is also a principal of defendant Graycliff. The individual plaintiff initially met the defendant Arhakis during or after Januar 2005, which developed, overtime into a business relationship with all the defendants that resulted in the plaintiff purchasing a home in August Relative to the corporate plaintiff, the defendant Graycliff entered into a construction and renovation contract on September 7, 2005 and did not finish the project after receipt of a considerable sum of money.

3 The plaintiffs assert that these two serious breaches of contract demonstrate a clear intent to defraud the plaintiffs of hundreds of thousands of dollars and to scheme to shield the monies received from the plaintiffs from any recovery. They further assert that the transfer oftitle to the subject propert is a clear indication of the defendants ' collective intent to shield assets from collection. The plaintiffs contend that substantial sums of money were paid, work was started, which was substandard, and not completed, which caused each plaintiff to contract with other builders to remedy the respective projects. The defendant Arhakis submits an affidavit, and limits his response to the request for an order of attachment. He argues that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated their entitlement to an order of attachment because they have stated mere suspicions of an intent to defraud creditors. He asserts that the transfer of the subject propert from he and his wife to Mr. Sonkin was for the purpose of generating cash flow. He further argues that the transfer of one-half of the interest in that propert back to his wife is a clear statement that there is no plaintiffkostopoulos and intent to shield assets. He further asserts that the contract with the the corporate plaintiff were not executed until more than one year after that transfer. In reply, the plaintiffs' counsel repeats the arguments made in the moving papers. He argues that the proof ofthe prior transfers should clearly infer that enforcement of a potential judgment was intended to be frustrated. He argues that the defendant Arhakis fails to explain, by documentation, the financing arrangement or the cash flow. DECISION CPLR 6201 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: An order of attachment may be granted in any action, except a matrimonial action, where the plaintiff has demanded and would be entitled, in whole or in part, or in the alternative, to a money judgment against one or more defendants, when: the defendant, with intent to defraud his creditors or frustrate the

4 The commentator explains: enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in plaintiff s favor, has assigned, disposed of encumbered or secreted propert, or removed it from the state or is about to do any of these acts Thus, where plaintiff wil be unable to acquire personal jurisdiction or where the situation is such that plaintiff requires security to insure that his judgment wil be satisfied, an order of attachment may be signed" (McLaughlin, Practice Commentary, McKinney s Cons Law of NY, Book 7B PLR 6201 ll). The applicable case law is clear: a plaintiffs suspicions that certain assets have been transferred with the intent to defraud or hinder collection of a judgment is insufficient sustain an attachment. (see Merril Lynch Futures. Inc. v Kelly 585 F. Supp 1245, 1984). Herein, the asset around which the instant application centers upon is the subject propert, 22 Ridge Drive East, Roslyn, N ew York. The other propert mentioned in the order to show cause is a 2005 Suburban vehicle which is neither mentioned nor focused upon in the supporting affidavit. That real propert was clearly transferred more than one year prior to any contractual relationship with these plaintiffs and the plaintiffs ' suspicions that such transfer was made with the intent to defraud the plaintiffs is meritless and unsupported any proof or inference from future actions by any of the defendants. Moreover, the subject propert was not transferred beyond the reach of these plaintiffs, it, in fact, is an asset of other co-defendants in this action. Additionally, the plaintiffs' attempt to show judgments and tax liens against these defendants is also fritless, inasmuch as those deficits also did not exist until after the transfer ofthe subject propert; and the plaintiffs' attempt to show some sort of pattern also falls well short of the necessary evidentiary standard. (see Computer Strat 2ies. Inc. v Commodore Business Machines. Inc., 105 AD2d NYS2d 716 Dept., 1984). Simply stated, the plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof on this

5 motion. The motion is denied. A Preliminary Conference has been scheduled for Februar at 9:30 a.m. in Chambers of the undersigned. Please be advised that counsel appearing for the Preliminary Conference shall be fully versed in the factual background and their client' s schedule for the purose of firm deposition dates. setting Dated IJAN Lu Q h'da ENTF 'AN NAS ;l'u COUNT COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE