Marisa S.-H. v. Christopher H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marisa S.-H. v. Christopher H.

2017 NY Slip Op 5572, 152 A.D.3d 426, 58 N.Y.S.3d 47

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

DecidedJuly 11, 2017

Docket4437 102061/12

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5572 (Marisa S.-H. v. Christopher H.) 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

Marisa S.-H. v. Christopher H., 2017 NY Slip Op 5572, 152 A.D.3d 426, 58 N.Y.S.3d 47 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tandra L. Dawson, J.), entered May 20, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff wife’s motion to confirm a report and recommendation of a special referee, and denied defendant husband’s motion to reject it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Special Referee’s report was amply supported by the rec *427 ord (Nager v Panadis, 238 AD2d 135, 135-136 [1st Dept 1997]). The “badges of fraud” supporting the Special Referee’s finding of a fraudulent conveyance are compelling, and not contested by the husband (Wall St. Assoc. v Brodsky, 257 AD2d 526, 529 [1st Dept 1999]). As the Special Referee found, the husband admitted that he sold the marital residence to a person he trusted and in fact considers to be his mother, and he does not deny selling the apartment below market value (id.). The husband also does not deny selling the property in secret or that it was done in an effort to delay and defraud the wife from her equitable share of property. Nor is there a basis to challenge the Special Referee’s determination that the relatively modest amount of the wife’s attorney’s fees was “reasonable” and recoverable under Debtor and Creditor Law §. 276-a.

We have considered the husband’s remaining contentions, which are largely irrelevant, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tandra L. Dawson, J.), entered May 20, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff wife’s motion to confirm a report and recommendation of a special referee, and denied defendant husband’s motion to reject it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Special Referee’s report was amply supported by the rec *427 ord (Nager v Panadis, 238 AD2d 135, 135-136 [1st Dept 1997]). The “badges of fraud” supporting the Special Referee’s finding of a fraudulent conveyance are compelling, and not contested by the husband (Wall St. Assoc. v Brodsky, 257 AD2d 526, 529 [1st Dept 1999]). As the Special Referee found, the husband admitted that he sold the marital residence to a person he trusted and in fact considers to be his mother, and he does not deny selling the apartment below market value (id.). The husband also does not deny selling the property in secret or that it was done in an effort to delay and defraud the wife from her equitable share of property. Nor is there a basis to challenge the Special Referee’s determination that the relatively modest amount of the wife’s attorney’s fees was “reasonable” and recoverable under Debtor and Creditor Law §. 276-a.

We have considered the husband’s remaining contentions, which are largely irrelevant, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5572, 152 A.D.3d 426, 58 N.Y.S.3d 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marisa-s-h-v-christopher-h-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack