unclean hands doctrine in New York

2025"The unclean hands doctrine applies where the [party seeking relief] is guilty of immoral, unconscionable conduct" ( Matter of Baker v Clinton County , 134 AD3d 1218, 1220 [3d Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Sutter v Lane , 61 AD3d 1310, 1313 [3d Dept 2009]) and "when the conduct relied on is directly related to the subject matter in litigation and the party seeking to invoke the doctrine was injured by such conduct" ( Weiss v Mayflower Doughnut Corp. , 1 NY2d 310, 316 [1956]).

2008While the parties dispute whether the doctrine of unclean hands can be applied to a transfer to avoid creditors’ claims where there is no allegation of injury (compare Weiss v Mayflower Doughnut Corp., 1 NY2d 310, 316 [1956], with Jossel v Meyers, 212 AD2d 55, 58 [1995]), Guyerzeller adequately alleged injury insofar as it asserted that it never would have funded the mortgage transaction had it known of the alleged Castor Holdings fraud and that it will be injured to the extent it loses its secured priority.

2008While the parties dispute whether the doctrine of unclean hands can be applied to a transfer to avoid creditors’ claims where there is no allegation of injury (compare Weiss v Mayflower Doughnut Corp., 1 NY2d 310, 316 [1956], with Jossel v Meyers, 212 AD2d 55, 58 [1995]), Guyerzeller adequately alleged injury insofar as it asserted that it never would have funded the mortgage transaction had it known of the alleged Castor Holdings fraud and that it will be injured to the extent it loses its secured priority.

2006The Supreme Court also correctly determined that this action is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands, since it is clear that the plaintiffs alleged entrustment of property to his sister was intended to place the assets out of the reach of his creditors, and his recovery of those assets is now precluded as a matter of public policy to protect the integrity of the court (see Moo Wei Wong v Wong, 293 AD2d 387 [2002]; Walker v Walker, 289 AD2d 225 [2001]; Zimberg v Zimberg, 268 AD2d 232 [2000]; Jossel v Meyers, 212 AD2d 55 [1995]; Langdon v Langdon, 138 AD2d 358 [1988]; Yula v Yula, 115 AD2d 47

2021Corp. v Seyopp Corp ., 17 NY2d 12, 15-16 ; Weiss v Mayflower Doughnut Corp ., 1 NY2d 310, 316 ; Ortiz v Silver Invs. , 165 AD3d at 1157; Lucia v Goldman , 145 AD3d 767, 769 ; Abdel-Qader v Abdel-Qader , 79 AD3d 674 ; Jara v Strong Steel Door, Inc ., 58 AD3d 600, 602 ; Columbo v Columbo , 50 AD3d 617, 619 ; Fade v Pugliani/Fade , 8 AD3d 612, 614 ; Kopsidas v Krokos , 294 AD2d 406, 407 ; Moo Wei Wong v Wong , 293 AD2d 387 ; Welch v Di Blasi , 289 AD2d 964 ; Zimberg v Zimberg , 268 AD2d 232 ; Langdon v Langdon , 138 AD2d 358 ; Higgins v Normile , 130 AD2d 828, 829 ; Frymer v Bell , 99 AD2d 91, 96

2016Corp. v Seyopp Corp., 17 NY2d 12, 15-16 [1966]; Jara v Strong Steel Door, Inc., 58 AD3d 600, 602 [2009]; Columbo v Columbo, 50 AD3d 617, 619 [2008]).

2025End Assoc. v Baron , 274 AD2d at 333 ; Dillon v Dean , 158 AD2d 579, 580 [2d Dept 1990]; Brown v Lockwood , 76 AD2d 721, 729 [2d Dept 1980]), and that the jury could resolve whether the transfer was consistent with the Lu family practice, irrespective of the statements made by Iris Lu and Patty Lu concerning the father's ownership ( see generally Lucia v Goldman , 145 AD3d 767, 769 [2d Dept 2016]).

2018Nor did defendants demonstrate that plaintiffs are not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance based on the doctrine of unclean hands, since the alleged wrongdoing by plaintiffs did not directly relate to the subject matter in litigation or injure defendants ( see Lucia v Goldman , 145 AD3d 767, 769 [2d Dept 2016]).

2005Plaintiff also states that the doctrine of unclean hands “ ‘is only applicable when the conduct relied on is directly related to the subject matter in litigation’ ” (Fade, 8 AD3d at 614 , quoting Mehlman v Aurech, 146 AD2d 753, 754 [1989]).

2001Moreover, Puglisi has demonstrated no injury from Tierno’s limited misconduct, making the unclean hands doctrine unavailable to him to bar equitable relief to Tierno (see, Nishman v De Marco, 62 NY2d 926 ; Mehlman v Avrech, 146 AD2d 753 ; Higgins v Normile, 130 AD2d 828 ).

2024LLC , 220 AD3d 435 , 436 [1st Dept 2023]), and Gilbane failed to plead "immoral or unconscionable conduct," as required for the unclean hands defense, or "exceptional circumstances," as required for the equitable estoppel defense ( see Citibank, N.A. v American Banana Co., Inc. , 50 AD3d 593, 594 [1st Dept 2008]; LoCiciro v Metropolitan Transp.

2024LLC , 220 AD3d 435 , 436 [1st Dept 2023]), and Gilbane failed to plead "immoral or unconscionable conduct," as required for the unclean hands defense, or "exceptional circumstances," as required for the equitable estoppel defense ( see Citibank, N.A. v American Banana Co., Inc. , 50 AD3d 593, 594 [1st Dept 2008]; LoCiciro v Metropolitan Transp.

2024Auth. , 288 AD2d 353, 354-355 [2d Dept 2001]).

2024Auth. , 288 AD2d 353, 354-355 [2d Dept 2001]).

2009In this regard, the question of whether the Borcks knew of the fraudulent purpose of the transaction is irrelevant (see Pattison v Pattison, 301 NY 65, 72 [1950]; Vasquez v Zambrano, 196 AD2d 840 [1993]).

1967In so stating, the court does not blink the facts that (1) under the Debtor and Creditor Law a “ creditor ” is a person having “ any claim, whether matured or unmatured, liquidated or unliquidated, absolute, fixed or contingent ” (§ 270) and that a “ conveyance made * * * with actual intent * * * to hinder, delay or defraud either present or future creditors, is fraudulent ” (§ 276), even though the transferor was solvent (Pattison v. Pattison, 301 N. Y. 65, 73-74 , supra) and (2) satisfaction of the judgment which transferor sought to avoid does not remove the taint (Pattison v. Pattison , p.

2009Given the plaintiffs admitted involvement in this alleged arrangement to convey the property to frustrate his creditors in the collection of their legitimate debts, his claim that the Borcks now should be compelled to convey title to the premises to him pursuant to the terms of that arrangement is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands (see Festinger v Edrich, 32 AD3d 412, 414 [2006]; Moo Wei Wong v Wong, 293 AD2d 387 [2002]; Walker v Walker, 289 AD2d 225, 226 [2001]; Zimberg v Zimberg, 268 AD2d 232 [2000]; Lagonegro v Lagonegro, 187 AD2d 490 [1992]; Ta Chun Wang v Chun Wong, 163 AD2d 300 [19

2006The Supreme Court also correctly determined that this action is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands, since it is clear that the plaintiffs alleged entrustment of property to his sister was intended to place the assets out of the reach of his creditors, and his recovery of those assets is now precluded as a matter of public policy to protect the integrity of the court (see Moo Wei Wong v Wong, 293 AD2d 387 [2002]; Walker v Walker, 289 AD2d 225 [2001]; Zimberg v Zimberg, 268 AD2d 232 [2000]; Jossel v Meyers, 212 AD2d 55 [1995]; Langdon v Langdon, 138 AD2d 358 [1988]; Yula v Yula, 115 AD2d 47

2009Given the plaintiffs admitted involvement in this alleged arrangement to convey the property to frustrate his creditors in the collection of their legitimate debts, his claim that the Borcks now should be compelled to convey title to the premises to him pursuant to the terms of that arrangement is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands (see Festinger v Edrich, 32 AD3d 412, 414 [2006]; Moo Wei Wong v Wong, 293 AD2d 387 [2002]; Walker v Walker, 289 AD2d 225, 226 [2001]; Zimberg v Zimberg, 268 AD2d 232 [2000]; Lagonegro v Lagonegro, 187 AD2d 490 [1992]; Ta Chun Wang v Chun Wong, 163 AD2d 300 [19

2005Pursuant to the doctrine of unclean hands, reconveyance of property will be denied to the plaintiff where the plaintiff had transferred the property with the intent to defraud (see Walker, 289 AD2d at 226 ; Muscarella, 93 AD2d at 994 ; Farino, 88 AD2d at 903 ).

2009Given the plaintiffs admitted involvement in this alleged arrangement to convey the property to frustrate his creditors in the collection of their legitimate debts, his claim that the Borcks now should be compelled to convey title to the premises to him pursuant to the terms of that arrangement is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands (see Festinger v Edrich, 32 AD3d 412, 414 [2006]; Moo Wei Wong v Wong, 293 AD2d 387 [2002]; Walker v Walker, 289 AD2d 225, 226 [2001]; Zimberg v Zimberg, 268 AD2d 232 [2000]; Lagonegro v Lagonegro, 187 AD2d 490 [1992]; Ta Chun Wang v Chun Wong, 163 AD2d 300 [19

2001The third affirmative defense alleges that plaintiffs were attempting to perpetrate a fraud on the SBA and that, based on the unclean hands doctrine, John cannot seek to enforce the Buy-Back Agreement. “[Ujnclean hands in participating in a course of conduct of deception and deceit is an effective bar” to causes of action to enforce the agreement that results from that deception and deceit (Ta Chun Wang v Chun Wong, 163 AD2d 300, 302 , lv denied 77 NY2d 804 , cert denied 501 US 1252 ; see, Farino v Farino, 88 AD2d 902 ).

2025"The unclean hands doctrine applies where the [party seeking relief] is guilty of immoral, unconscionable conduct" ( Matter of Baker v Clinton County , 134 AD3d 1218, 1220 [3d Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Sutter v Lane , 61 AD3d 1310, 1313 [3d Dept 2009]) and "when the conduct relied on is directly related to the subject matter in litigation and the party seeking to invoke the doctrine was injured by such conduct" ( Weiss v Mayflower Doughnut Corp. , 1 NY2d 310, 316 [1956]).

2019Unclean Hands In DLJ's third affirmative defense, DLJ alleges that Home Equities' claims are barred by the "doctrine of unclean hands." The doctrine of unclean hands is only applicable "'when the conduct relie[d] on is directly related to the subject matter in litigation and the party seeking to invoke the doctrine was injured by such conduct'." Sutter v. Lane , 61 AD3d 1310 , 1313 (3d Dept 2009).

2025End Assoc. v Baron , 274 AD2d at 333 ; Dillon v Dean , 158 AD2d 579, 580 [2d Dept 1990]; Brown v Lockwood , 76 AD2d 721, 729 [2d Dept 1980]), and that the jury could resolve whether the transfer was consistent with the Lu family practice, irrespective of the statements made by Iris Lu and Patty Lu concerning the father's ownership ( see generally Lucia v Goldman , 145 AD3d 767, 769 [2d Dept 2016]).

1997With respect to plaintiff’s third cause of action for special damages from a public nuisance (see, Copart Indus. v Consolidated Edison Co., 41 NY2d 564 , 568), the IAS Court properly refused to dismiss on the basis of the doctrine of unclean hands, which raises issues that require factual exploration (see, e.g., Dillon v Dean, 158 AD2d 579, 580 ).

2025Under these circumstances, we do not believe that the unclean hands defense must be imposed as a matter of law to the father's claim of ownership ( see Toobian v Golzad , 193 AD3d 784 , 788-789 [2d Dept 2021], lv dismissed 37 NY3d 1174 [2022]; Ortiz v Silver Invs. , 165 AD3d 1156 , 1158 [2d Dept 2018]; Kopsidas v Krokos , 294 AD2d 406, 407 [2d Dept 2002]; 390 W.

2021Corp. v Seyopp Corp ., 17 NY2d 12, 15-16 ; Weiss v Mayflower Doughnut Corp ., 1 NY2d 310, 316 ; Ortiz v Silver Invs. , 165 AD3d at 1157; Lucia v Goldman , 145 AD3d 767, 769 ; Abdel-Qader v Abdel-Qader , 79 AD3d 674 ; Jara v Strong Steel Door, Inc ., 58 AD3d 600, 602 ; Columbo v Columbo , 50 AD3d 617, 619 ; Fade v Pugliani/Fade , 8 AD3d 612, 614 ; Kopsidas v Krokos , 294 AD2d 406, 407 ; Moo Wei Wong v Wong , 293 AD2d 387 ; Welch v Di Blasi , 289 AD2d 964 ; Zimberg v Zimberg , 268 AD2d 232 ; Langdon v Langdon , 138 AD2d 358 ; Higgins v Normile , 130 AD2d 828, 829 ; Frymer v Bell , 99 AD2d 91, 96

2021Corp. v Seyopp Corp ., 17 NY2d 12, 15-16 ; Weiss v Mayflower Doughnut Corp ., 1 NY2d 310, 316 ; Ortiz v Silver Invs. , 165 AD3d at 1157; Lucia v Goldman , 145 AD3d 767, 769 ; Abdel-Qader v Abdel-Qader , 79 AD3d 674 ; Jara v Strong Steel Door, Inc ., 58 AD3d 600, 602 ; Columbo v Columbo , 50 AD3d 617, 619 ; Fade v Pugliani/Fade , 8 AD3d 612, 614 ; Kopsidas v Krokos , 294 AD2d 406, 407 ; Moo Wei Wong v Wong , 293 AD2d 387 ; Welch v Di Blasi , 289 AD2d 964 ; Zimberg v Zimberg , 268 AD2d 232 ; Langdon v Langdon , 138 AD2d 358 ; Higgins v Normile , 130 AD2d 828, 829 ; Frymer v Bell , 99 AD2d 91, 96

2016Corp. v Seyopp Corp., 17 NY2d 12, 15-16 [1966]; Jara v Strong Steel Door, Inc., 58 AD3d 600, 602 [2009]; Columbo v Columbo, 50 AD3d 617, 619 [2008]).

2021The defendants' reliance upon Festinger v Edrich ( 32 AD3d 412 ) is misplaced, as the holding there is based more on the doctrine of judicial estoppel than on the doctrine of unclean hands.

2009Given the plaintiffs admitted involvement in this alleged arrangement to convey the property to frustrate his creditors in the collection of their legitimate debts, his claim that the Borcks now should be compelled to convey title to the premises to him pursuant to the terms of that arrangement is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands (see Festinger v Edrich, 32 AD3d 412, 414 [2006]; Moo Wei Wong v Wong, 293 AD2d 387 [2002]; Walker v Walker, 289 AD2d 225, 226 [2001]; Zimberg v Zimberg, 268 AD2d 232 [2000]; Lagonegro v Lagonegro, 187 AD2d 490 [1992]; Ta Chun Wang v Chun Wong, 163 AD2d 300 [19

2021Corp. v Seyopp Corp ., 17 NY2d 12, 15-16 ; Weiss v Mayflower Doughnut Corp ., 1 NY2d 310, 316 ; Ortiz v Silver Invs. , 165 AD3d at 1157; Lucia v Goldman , 145 AD3d 767, 769 ; Abdel-Qader v Abdel-Qader , 79 AD3d 674 ; Jara v Strong Steel Door, Inc ., 58 AD3d 600, 602 ; Columbo v Columbo , 50 AD3d 617, 619 ; Fade v Pugliani/Fade , 8 AD3d 612, 614 ; Kopsidas v Krokos , 294 AD2d 406, 407 ; Moo Wei Wong v Wong , 293 AD2d 387 ; Welch v Di Blasi , 289 AD2d 964 ; Zimberg v Zimberg , 268 AD2d 232 ; Langdon v Langdon , 138 AD2d 358 ; Higgins v Normile , 130 AD2d 828, 829 ; Frymer v Bell , 99 AD2d 91, 96

2016Corp. v Seyopp Corp., 17 NY2d 12, 15-16 [1966]; Jara v Strong Steel Door, Inc., 58 AD3d 600, 602 [2009]; Columbo v Columbo, 50 AD3d 617, 619 [2008]).

2018Contrary to the defendant's contention, the unclean hands doctrine did not preclude the granting of preliminary injunctive relief in this case, as the application of that equitable doctrine presents a question of fact that cannot be resolved at this early stage of the action ( see ERS Enters. v Empire Holdings , 286 AD2d 206, 207 ; Chai & Tantrakoon v Royal Realty Corp ., 246 AD2d 398, 399 ; Lew-Mark Cleaners Corp. v DeMartini , 128 AD2d 758, 759 ).

2017Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the unclean hands doctrine did not preclude the granting of preliminary injunctive relief in this case, as the application of that equitable doctrine presents a question of fact that cannot be resolved at this early stage of the action (see ERS Enters. v Empire Holdings, 286 AD2d 206, 207 [2001]; Chai & Tantrakoon v Royal Realty Corp., 246 AD2d 398, 399 [1998]; Lew-Mark Cleaners Corp. v DeMartini, 128 AD2d 758, 759 [1987]).

2018Contrary to the defendant's contention, the unclean hands doctrine did not preclude the granting of preliminary injunctive relief in this case, as the application of that equitable doctrine presents a question of fact that cannot be resolved at this early stage of the action ( see ERS Enters. v Empire Holdings , 286 AD2d 206, 207 ; Chai & Tantrakoon v Royal Realty Corp ., 246 AD2d 398, 399 ; Lew-Mark Cleaners Corp. v DeMartini , 128 AD2d 758, 759 ).

2017Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the unclean hands doctrine did not preclude the granting of preliminary injunctive relief in this case, as the application of that equitable doctrine presents a question of fact that cannot be resolved at this early stage of the action (see ERS Enters. v Empire Holdings, 286 AD2d 206, 207 [2001]; Chai & Tantrakoon v Royal Realty Corp., 246 AD2d 398, 399 [1998]; Lew-Mark Cleaners Corp. v DeMartini, 128 AD2d 758, 759 [1987]).

2018Contrary to the defendant's contention, the unclean hands doctrine did not preclude the granting of preliminary injunctive relief in this case, as the application of that equitable doctrine presents a question of fact that cannot be resolved at this early stage of the action ( see ERS Enters. v Empire Holdings , 286 AD2d 206, 207 ; Chai & Tantrakoon v Royal Realty Corp ., 246 AD2d 398, 399 ; Lew-Mark Cleaners Corp. v DeMartini , 128 AD2d 758, 759 ).

2017Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the unclean hands doctrine did not preclude the granting of preliminary injunctive relief in this case, as the application of that equitable doctrine presents a question of fact that cannot be resolved at this early stage of the action (see ERS Enters. v Empire Holdings, 286 AD2d 206, 207 [2001]; Chai & Tantrakoon v Royal Realty Corp., 246 AD2d 398, 399 [1998]; Lew-Mark Cleaners Corp. v DeMartini, 128 AD2d 758, 759 [1987]).

2005Pursuant to the doctrine of unclean hands, reconveyance of property will be denied to the plaintiff where the plaintiff had transferred the property with the intent to defraud (see Walker, 289 AD2d at 226 ; Muscarella, 93 AD2d at 994 ; Farino, 88 AD2d at 903 ).

2005Pursuant to the doctrine of unclean hands, relief must be denied “not as a protection to a defendant, but as a disability to the plaintiff’ (Farino, 88 AD2d at 903 ; see also Jossel, 212 AD2d at 57 ).

2004The doctrine “is only applicable when the conduct relied on is directly related to the subject matter in litigation and the party seeking to invoke the doctrine was injured by such conduct” (Mehlman v Avrech, 146 AD2d 753, 754 [1989]; see Nishman v De Marco, 62 NY2d 926, 927 [1984]; Weiss v Mayflower Doughnut Corp., 1 NY2d 310, 316 [1956]; Dinerstein v Dinerstein, 32 AD2d 750 [1969]).

2001Moreover, Puglisi has demonstrated no injury from Tierno’s limited misconduct, making the unclean hands doctrine unavailable to him to bar equitable relief to Tierno (see, Nishman v De Marco, 62 NY2d 926 ; Mehlman v Avrech, 146 AD2d 753 ; Higgins v Normile, 130 AD2d 828 ).