- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Bersson
Factual and Procedural Background
This case involves a dispute over the sale of a condominium owned by defendant-judgment debtor Mel Cooper. Plaintiff CADLEROCK JOINT VENTURE, L.P. and intervenors-appellants hold judgments entered in May 2007, which they claim have priority over a conveyance of the condominium via a deed dated and recorded in October 2007. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted a stay of a sheriff's sale of the condominium requested by defendant David Cooper and intervenor Imperial Capital, LLC, and denied intervenors-judgment creditors Benhuri, Kroitoro, and Epstein's motion to appoint a receiver to conduct the sale. The appellants challenge this order, seeking to vacate the stay and proceed with the sale under a receivership pursuant to a stipulation among the parties.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the judgments entered in May 2007 have priority over the purported conveyance of the condominium by deed dated October 2007.
- Whether the stay of the sheriff's sale pending the outcome of a fraudulent conveyance action was proper.
- Whether the notation on the October 2007 deed, which is confirmatory of an earlier April 2006 deed, constitutes a valid conveyance of real property as of the earlier date.
- Whether plaintiff waived the right to a sheriff's sale by stipulating to a sale conducted by designated co-receivers.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the priority of the judgments entered in May 2007 relative to the October 2007 deed conveying the condominium. It held that under CPLR 5203, the judgments have priority over the subsequent deed. The court further reasoned that the notation on the October 2007 deed, which purportedly confirms an April 2006 deed, is insufficient to establish a conveyance at the earlier date, citing Real Property Law §§ 243 and 291. Consequently, the court found the stay of the sheriff's sale improper because the appellants’ judgments were entered prior to the deed, rendering the October 2007 conveyance invalid against them regardless of its bona fide nature. Finally, the court noted that the plaintiff waived the right to a sheriff's sale by entering into a valid stipulation with other creditors providing for a sale by designated co-receivers, thus directing the sale to proceed under receivership as agreed.
Holding and Implications
The order granting the stay of the sheriff's sale is reversed, the stay is vacated, and the sale is directed to proceed under the auspices of a receivership pursuant to the parties' stipulation.
The decision directly affects the parties by allowing the condominium sale to proceed under court-appointed receivership, affirming the priority of the appellants’ judgments over the disputed deed. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory rules concerning judgment priority and conveyance validity.
FRIEDMAN
Vlock & Associates, P.C., New York (Stephen Vlock of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Law Offices of Nathaniel B. Smith, New York (Nathaniel B. Smith of counsel), for appellants.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, ACOSTA, ABDUS–SALAAM, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered June 15, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant David Cooper and intervenor Imperial's cross motion to stay a sheriff's sale of a condominium belonging to defendant-judgment debtor Mel Cooper, and denied intervenors-judgment creditors Benhuri, Kroitoro and Epstein's motion to have a receiver appointed to conduct the sale, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the stay vacated, and the sale directed to proceed under the auspices of a receivership, pursuant to the parties' stipulation.
Plaintiff and intervenors-appellants are correct that their judgments, entered in May 2007, have priority over the purported conveyance of the debtor's condominium via a deed dated and recorded in October 2007 (CPLR 5203). Moreover, the notation on the October 2007 deed that is “confirmatory” of a deed supposedly executed in April 2006 is insufficient to create or evidence a conveyance of real property at that early time (Real Property Law §§ 243, 291). The IAS court erred in staying the sale pending the outcome of a fraudulent conveyance action brought by a subsequent judgment debtor. Because the judgments of appellants were entered prior to October 2007, it does not matter whether the conveyance in October 2007 was bona fide; it is invalid as to them. Finally, Plaintiff waived any right to a sale of the property by the sheriff when it entered into a valid stipulation with the other creditors that provided for a sale by designated co-receivers.
Alert