Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak, 401 N.E.2d 187 (NY 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak, 401 N.E.2d 187 (NY 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
126 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ellison v. Schulte (nyappdiv, 2026-01-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ellison v. Schulte (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Studley, Inc. v Lefrak , 48 NY2d 954, 956 [1979]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) WBP Central Associates, LLC v. DeCola
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Studley, Inc. v Lefrak, 48 NY2d 954, 956 [1979]; Matter of Goldman v Chapman, 44 AD3d 938, 939-940 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 702 [2008]; First Capital Asset Mgt. v N.A.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) White v. Coon (In Re Purco, Inc.)
Bankr. W.D. Pa. · 1987 · confidence medium
Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak, 66 A.D.2d 208 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 901 (2d Dept. 1979), aff'd. 48 N.Y.2d 954 , 425 N.Y.S.2d 65 , 401 N.E.2d 187 (1979), states with precision what occurred in the case at bench: “The manipulation of corporate assets by the respondents [officers] in the face of the petitioner’s [creditor’s] rights by preferring the interests of those in control of the corporation reflects bad faith and deprives the respondents of the status of transferees for fair consideration.” Id. at 215, 412 N.Y.S.2d 901 , cited with approval in In re Checkmate Stereo & Electronics, Ltd., 9 B.R. 5…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barr v. Weber (In Re Carousel Candy Co.)
Bankr. E.D.N.Y. · 1984 · confidence medium
Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak, 66 A.D.2d 208 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 901 (2nd Dept. 1979, aff’d 48 N.Y.2d 954 , 425 N.Y.S.2d 65 , 401 N.E.2d 187 (1979)), the Court said: “The manipulation of corporate assets by the respondents in the face of the petitioner’s rights by preferring the interests of those in control of the corporation reflects bad faith and deprives the respondents of the status of transferees for fair consideration.” Id. at 215, 412 N.Y.S.2d 901 .
examined Cited "see" United States v. Red Stripe, Inc. (3×)
E.D.N.Y · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Studley v. Lefrak, 66 A.D.2d 208 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 901, 905 (2d Dep’t) aff'd, 48 N.Y.2d 954 , 425 N.Y.S.2d 65 , 425 N.Y.S.2d 65 (1979) (and cases cited therein).
examined Cited "see" A.F.L. Falck, S.P.A. v. E.A. Karay Co. (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Studley v. Lefrak, 66 A.D.2d 208 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 901 (2d Dep’t), aff'd, 48 N.Y.2d 954 , 425 N.Y.S.2d 65 , 401 N.E.2d 187 (1979); Southern Industries v. Jeremias, 66 A.D.2d 178, 185 , 411 N.Y.S.2d 945 (2d Dep’t 1978).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Sunrise Industrial Joint Venture v. Ditric Optics, Inc. (3×)
E.D.N.Y · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Studley v. Lefrak, 66 A.D.2d 208 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 901, 905 (2d Dept.) (holding that a creditor “has standing to maintain an action to set aside a fraudulent transfer, though his debt may not have been in existence at the time of the transfer.”), aff'd, 48 N.Y.2d 954 , 425 N.Y.S.2d 65 , 401 N.E.2d 187 (1979).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp. (3×)
D.N.J. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Studley v. Lefrak, 48 N.Y.2d 954 , 425 N.Y.S.2d 65, 66 , 401 N.E.2d 187 (Ct.App.1979); Christman v. Starr, 74 A.D.2d 981 , 426 N.Y.S.2d 329 (App.Div. 3d Dept. 1980).
Julien J. Studley, Inc.
v.
Samuel J. Lefrak
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 17, 1979.
401 N.E.2d 187
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Simon H. Rifkind, Robert S. Smith and Richard Briffault for appellants., Alan E. Bandler for respondent.
Cited by 68 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

In so deciding, essentially for reasons stated in the opinion of the Appellate Division as well, we add the following comment: With respect to respondents’ claim that the present proceeding is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, it must be emphasized that the prior breach of contract action simply sought to "pierce the corporate veil” on the theory that the respondent Samuel Lefrak dominated and controlled the corporate nominees to carry on his personal business affairs. Although proof of fraud is relevant in such a suit it is not essential (2 Hornstein, Corporation Law & Practice, § 755; Lattin, Corporations, § 4, pp 67-68) and, in fact, was neither alleged in the complaint nor proved at trial.

This proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR 5225 (subd [b]) to enforce the judgment that had been rendered against the corporate defendants in the first action, also did not depend on fraud. Proof of the transfers of the corporate assets without fair consideration could suffice to cast the respondents in the role of constructive trustees of the assets, which thus became reachable by the corporation’s creditors under sections 272-274 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, a statute that played no part in the earlier action.

In sum, therefore, even though successive actions have arisen out of essentially the same course of dealing, because " '[t]he requisite elements of proof and hence the evidence necessary to sustain recovery vary materially’ ” the subsequent proceeding is not precluded by res judicata (Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24, 30). Moreover, given the differences in proofs and the fact that the legislatively sanctioned enforcement proceeding contemplates a pre-existing judgment, it cannot be said that the subsequent judgment in petitioner’s favor either destroyed or impaired the rights or interests established by the first action (see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur; Judge Meyer taking no part.

[*957] Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.