Opinion
Argued May 15, 2000.
June 19, 2000.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the third-party defendants appeal from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Geller, R.), dated February 2, 1999, which, inter alia, directed them to convey title to the marital residence to the plaintiff husband.
Dollinger, Gonski Grossman, Carle Place, N.Y. (Michael J. Spithogiannis of counsel), for third-party defendants-appellants.
Tracy L. Welsh, Jamaica, N.Y. (Debra Sambataro of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The evidence at trial supports the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the conveyance of the marital home by the plaintiff husband to the appellants, who are two of his siblings, was made with "actual intent * * * to hinder, delay, or defraud" the defendant third-party plaintiff wife (see, Debtor and Creditor Law § 276 Debt. Cred.; Pen Pak Corp. v. LaSalle Natl. Bank of Chicago, 240 A.D.2d 384, 386; Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. Rice, 199 A.D.2d 365, 366-367; Marine Midland Bank v. Murkoff, 120 A.D.2d 122, 128-129; Soldano v. Soldano, 66 A.D.2d 839). A conveyance made with actual intent to defraud may be set aside even if fair value was given in exchange for the property (see, Wall St. Assocs. v. Brodsky, 257 A.D.2d 526, 529; Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. Rice, supra, at 366).
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court did not err in directing that the property be reconveyed to the plaintiff, who is then to place the defendant third-party plaintiff's name on the deed so that they hold the property as tenants in common. This relief gives the defendant third-party plaintiff the same rights she would have had prior to the fraudulent conveyance (see, Marine Midland Bank v. Murkoff, supra). Since the property will be held by the plaintiff and the defendant third-party plaintiff as tenants in common, rather than by the appellants and the defendant third-party plaintiff, the plaintiff's interest in the property is available for enforcement proceedings should he default on the child support payments which he is obligated to pay by the judgment of divorce (see, Debtor and Creditor Law § 279 Debt. Cred.; Soldano v. Soldano, supra). Pursuant to that judgment, the appellants are no longer responsible for the payment of expenses for the property, including the mortgage. Any further monetary relief should be sought, if necessary, from the plaintiff.