Opinion
3638, 3638A.
Decided May 13, 2004.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered August 12, 2003, which dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 22, 2003, granting defendant's dismissal motion and denying plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
Belkin Burdin Wenig Goldman, LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for appellant.
Hartman, Ule, Rose Ratner, LLP, New York (David Ratner of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Lerner, Marlow, JJ.
The fraud causes of action were not sufficiently pleaded in accordance with CPLR 3016(b), failing to set forth specific facts or details of alleged misrepresentation as to the status of defendant's tenancy ( see Glickman v. Alper, 236 A.D.2d 230, 231), and the proposed amended complaint failed to correct that deficiency. Defendant's rent-stabilized lease, executed subsequent to the filing of a notice of pendency, was not voidable as a fraudulent conveyance. Plaintiff was not a creditor entitled to relief under the Fraudulent Conveyance Act ( see Debtor and Creditor Law art 10). This was not a "sweetheart lease" because it did not give defendant special privileges with regard to subletting, assigning or primary residence, which would be void as against public policy and the rent regulation statutes and code ( cf. Rima 106 v. Alvarez, 257 A.D.2d 201). Defendant was not an employee of the landlord who allegedly made the fraudulent conveyance.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.