Barclays Bank of New York, N.A. v. Recupero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barclays Bank of New York, N.A. v. Recupero

169 A.D.2d 752, 566 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 999

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 22, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 752 (Barclays Bank of New York, N.A. v. Recupero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barclays Bank of New York, N.A. v. Recupero, 169 A.D.2d 752, 566 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, the defendants Jack and Suzanne Vecchiarelli appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme [753]*753Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered November 29, 1988, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against them.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, we find that the plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that the conveyance made by the defendant Jack Vecchiarelli to his wife, the defendant Suzanne Vecchiarelli, was fraudulent as that term is defined in Debtor and Creditor Law § 273. Thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to the drastic remedy of summary judgment (see, Fox v Wyeth Labs., 129 AD2d 611). Brown, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, the defendants Jack and Suzanne Vecchiarelli appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme [753]*753Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered November 29, 1988, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against them.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, we find that the plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that the conveyance made by the defendant Jack Vecchiarelli to his wife, the defendant Suzanne Vecchiarelli, was fraudulent as that term is defined in Debtor and Creditor Law § 273. Thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to the drastic remedy of summary judgment (see, Fox v Wyeth Labs., 129 AD2d 611). Brown, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 752, 566 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barclays-bank-of-new-york-na-v-recupero-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack