Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak
Cases that cite this one
69 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Long Oil Heat, Inc. v. Spencer (District Court, N.D. New York 2019)
- Theatre Row Phase II Associates v. H & I Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2011)
- Silverman v. Paul's Landmark, Inc. (In re Nirvana Restaurant Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2006)
- Sharp International Corp. v. State Street Bank & Trust Co. (In re Sharp International Corp.) (District Court, E.D. New York 2003)
- Lawson v. Barden (In re Skalski) (United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. New York 2001)
- Le Café Creme, Ltd. v. Le Roux (In re Le Café Creme, Ltd.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2000)
- Hassett v. Goetzmann (District Court, N.D. New York 1998)
- Pashaian v. Eccelston Properties, Ltd. (2d Cir. 1996)
- Pashaian v. Eccelston Properties, Ltd. (2d Cir. 1996)
- United States v. McCombs (District Court, W.D. New York 1995)
- Sunrise Industrial Joint Venture v. Ditric Optics, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 1995)
- MFS/Sun Life Trust-High Yield Series v. Van Dusen Airport Services. Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1995)
- Petersen v. Vallenzano (District Court, S.D. New York 1994)
- United States v. Red Stripe, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 1992)
- J. Baranello & Sons, Inc. v. Baharestani (In re J. Baranello & Sons, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 1992)
- In re Revco D.S., Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio 1990)
- A.F.L. Falck, S.P.A. v. E.A. Karay Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1989)
- Musso v. Herman (In re Tesmetges) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 1988)
- White v. Coon (In re Purco, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1987)
- Gray v. Fill (In re Fill) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1987)
- Henderson v. Buchanan (In re Western World Funding, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nevada 1985)
- Barr v. Weber (In re Carousel Candy Co.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 1984)
- Hassett v. McColley (In re O.P.M. Leasing Services, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1983)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1981)
- Pereira v. Checkmate Communications Co. (In re Checkmate Stereo & Electronics, Ltd.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 1981)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.