Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
H. Daya International Co. v. Do Denim LLC
Citation: 258 F. Supp. 3d 401Docket: 16 Civ. 8668 (VM)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York; June 15, 2017; Federal District Court
H. Daya International Co. Ltd. filed a lawsuit against multiple defendants, including Do Denim LLC and Reward Jean LLC, seeking to enforce a prior judgment from June 29, 2012, related to unpaid goods. H. Daya alleges that these companies fraudulently transferred assets to Vintage Apparel and associated individuals to evade payment, in violation of New York Debtor-Creditor Law Sections 272-278. Specifically, H. Daya claims that $3,996,714.50 was transferred to Siskind Co. and Richard Siskind, with $2,232,477.53 intended to hinder H. Daya's collection efforts. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the Do Denim trademark was transferred to Vintage Apparel and its owners, who then canceled and re-registered it under Only Brands to protect it from H. Daya's claims. Siskind requested dismissal of the claims against him, arguing that the allegations did not sufficiently link him to the fraudulent transfers or trademark actions. The court, however, denied his motion to dismiss, indicating that the allegations were adequate to maintain the claims against him. H. Daya's April 24, 2017 letter asserts that the Amended Complaint includes sufficient allegations against Siskind to withstand a motion to dismiss. The allegations detail specific transfers from Do Denim and Reward Jean to Siskind and his co-owned company, Siskind Co. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter that suggests a plausible claim for relief, which requires the court to accept all well-pleaded allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. The Amended Complaint alleges fraudulent transfers totaling $3,996,714.50 to Siskind individually, as well as the transfer of the Do Denim trademark to entities controlled by Siskind. Under New York law, only those who directly benefit from fraudulent transfers can be held liable, and individual liability requires evidence of direct receipt of transferred assets. The court emphasizes that merely being an officer of a corporation that received a fraudulent transfer does not establish personal liability. Nonetheless, the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges fraudulent transfers to Siskind individually, thus creating a plausible claim for relief. As a result, the court denies Siskind's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, affirming that the allegations are accepted as true for this motion.