Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court did not improperly disregard relevant documentary evidence when it granted the petitioners' motion for summary judgment. The court's decision is fully supported by corporate records and the appellant Richard Lulkin's own deposition testimony. Moreover, the appellants failed to raise a genuine issue of fact by submitting, in opposition to the petitioners' motion, an affidavit from Richard Lulkin that contradicts his prior deposition testimony. Having established that the judgment debtor's assets were transferred without fair consideration when the judgment debtor was a defendant in a prior lawsuit and that the transfer rendered the judgment debtor insolvent, the petitioners were entitled to summary judgment (see, Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273, 273-a; Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak, 66 A.D.2d 208, affd 48 N.Y.2d 954). Sullivan, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.