Joseph v. Giacalone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph v. Giacalone

209 A.D.2d 672, 619 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11751

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 672 (Joseph v. Giacalone) 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

Joseph v. Giacalone, 209 A.D.2d 672, 619 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action by a judgment creditor pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law article 10 to set aside a transfer of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated July 1, 1993, which denied his motion for summary judgment setting aside the transfer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for entry of an appropriate judgment.

The Supreme Court erred in failing to grant summary [673]*673judgment to the plaintiff under the circumstances of this case. The plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the transfer of real property by the defendant to the defendant’s brother was fraudulent within the meaning of Debtor and Creditor Law § 273. In opposition to the motion, the defendant failed to establish the existence of triable issues of fact and therefore, summary judgment should have been granted to the plaintiff (see, Matter of American Inv. Bank v Marine Midland Bank, 191 AD2d 690, 691-692; Ede v Ede, 193 AD2d 940; Spielvogel v Welbourne, 175 AD2d 830). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action by a judgment creditor pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law article 10 to set aside a transfer of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), dated July 1, 1993, which denied his motion for summary judgment setting aside the transfer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for entry of an appropriate judgment.

The Supreme Court erred in failing to grant summary [673]*673judgment to the plaintiff under the circumstances of this case. The plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the transfer of real property by the defendant to the defendant’s brother was fraudulent within the meaning of Debtor and Creditor Law § 273. In opposition to the motion, the defendant failed to establish the existence of triable issues of fact and therefore, summary judgment should have been granted to the plaintiff (see, Matter of American Inv. Bank v Marine Midland Bank, 191 AD2d 690, 691-692; Ede v Ede, 193 AD2d 940; Spielvogel v Welbourne, 175 AD2d 830). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 672, 619 N.Y.S.2d 956, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-giacalone-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack