claim should go forward for starters the district court overstated the pleading burden required to state a claim for constructive fraudulent conveyance under section two hundred and seventy three dollars of the new york debtor and creditor log this plausible grounds does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage it simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence detailed factual allegations are not required this complaint plausibly satisfies the trombley standard it does so by plausibly alleging that the defendant fraudulent removed her sole assets to believed well we that we pleaded it essentially on information and belief we believed it was or so i said that he believed that based on his telephone conversations with her and his course of for nonpayment of a debt exceeding nine hundred and seventy five thousand dollars this was a debt she had promised to pay and made payments on from one thousand nine hundred and ninety one to ninety four dollars it took her twelve years to claim in two thousand and six that she only agreed to pay the debt under duress as a defense against the plaintiff sued for breach of contract that suit was on appeal from a dismissal when in april two thousand and eight she obtained the proceeds from mortgaging her co op her only asset having told the plain is that she would not mortgage her apartment to pay him next interest on appeal from the judgment in her favor yes argument on that yes but if you lose the appeal you have no damages from the conveyance we lose the appeal that's currently before the st of our men but we can go on with appeals well that's that's what i find troubling about your argument that suggests that she even though she wanted to try a level she can't convey her property at all as long as you keep filing appeals w the whatever you can find will entertain them the statute defines a debt and a creditor as any liability that's contingent on mature liquidated or on liquidate thinking of because that was where the the the the there was a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and while it was on appeal the court  said the defendant creditor the other case you cite i'm looking for it now deals with when one isn't defend it which is a somewhat different situation i just want to make sure i know what case you think what case supports your conclusion that a successful defendant on trial remains a creditor through the appeals process well i think we rely on but isn't that a different thing that is and and as you're citing the case it stands for the proposition that the creditor doesn't have to change a judgment it doesn't stand for the proposition that a creditor having lost is still in the same position where we don't  because it was on appeal at that at the time of the transfers those cases were all in the summary judgment context or trial context and where and after discovery evidence had been produced as to whether there was a probable liability or not but at the pleading stage that's not the plaintiff's burden and obs were so focusing your attention now on after prove that the current to defend him prevailed in the state court trial and how how you can argue that she she remains a debtor on appeal is what we're asking you about you say is still valid until a final does yes if there is a final decision at some point then you are absolutely correct the debt with not be probable or val allege which is that you claim that the transfers were made not in satisfaction of an antecedent debt but i didn't see any mention in your pleading of the other option for fair consideration which was transfer  the other part which is on the other option i allege ing that there was no consideration the plaintiff was alleging that that the defendant did not receive any consideration from the transfer sears saying that we should just construe your use of business or tracking the statutory language as implicitly alleging facts that would satisfy that standard that's plausible and another point is that twamley did not put the burden on the mean you have to make some actual concrete allegation right that there was no equivalent transfer you just say she gave him the money well yes but that we have so many facts that support that she obtained a mortgage to do that we claim it was her only asset she continued these transfers for over a long period of time she you know voiced her intent not to pay  plaintiff and after the fact in two thousand and ten a telephone conversation she told him she had hidden the assets i mean taken together not out you know as a whole the facts the who what have any case law that talks about when when facts of been decided against you as they were in the state court trial what you have to plead to state a plausible claim when something is on appeal and me i don't even know what your challenge to the jury verdict is on appeal well i can i can try to answer it i mean you know the finding right now by a fact finding you had your day in court is that there was no obligation here the appeal to the st department which is being heard you know soon you know states that that they're demanding a new trial because  state court was biased it gave incorrect improper and fury and struction send charges and all of that merits a new a new trial so it could be submit punctuate that plaintiff has failed to plead any construct or intentional fraudulent conveyance claimed in accordance with the plausibility requirements or with respect to the intentional complaint facts that do not support claim facts that do not support the alleged claims and statements that are completely conclusory despite this continually changing story shifting sand we submit that there are no facts that are alleged ask you about the insolvency sure part of it and let's assume away all the other problems that i know  mean in discovery in whatever response of pleading the plaintiff can assert the defendant can assert that she has lots of other assets to cover any judgment but why isn't it enough at the pleading stage for plausible to think that's her that's an asset that if she if she encumbers it will render unsolved why is that not plausible or that's not what the complaint says the complaint your honor says it's the only asset of substantial value that the plaintiff knows that she has and my point is how what else is the plaintiff supposed to plead to plaintiff before discovery is not in a position to identify every asset the defendant has liabilities and you have to say that the probable liabilities exceed the saleable assets there's no such you can get access to that material well even if you are a plaintiff you still have to put forth some detail if you're going to plead on information and belief and we submit this complaint is not contrary to what my colleague said pled on from ation and belief you have to set forth a statement of facts on which you believe there to be a basis for insolvency the only allegations in this complaint are just come there blanket claims their claims that she mortgaged her only asset of value and as the as judge daniel recognized there are plenty of facts in the complaint that indicate she has other assets assets that might actually exceed her her liabilities there's no obligation for example in the complaint that the possible liability in this was a very contingent liability was going to factual allegations certainly that thats it i don't believe it is because one this of the putting aside that this was a communication that she made in the context of trying to brought forward the fact is it was brought for his part to complain so doesn't that become a rather specific factual allegation it still doesn't we submit that it was a communication made between two litigants two former spouses who have been litigating the case for years in the interest of trying to settle a another action so we submit that context is very important to the complaint i want why is that important because we think that she's not telling the truth now i  some she's telling the truth we assume right and he told the six we're going to sue moss the taxes is pled must be taken as true why wouldn't we assume is true that if the other side wins she goes bankrupt and isn't another way of saying she plaintiffs without any obligations but it's hardly require her to come forward with enough to succeed at trial oh god please so you know she's he's alleged as far as you know she's got well from the transfer chair judge one we submit there's no statement in the complaint about her assets there's no statement that she did not have not so there is a statement about her or her of a large asset your complaint is well they have she you know they haven't come forward with an accounting or a balance sheet or something like that but how is how is one private party supposed to acquire that with respect to is another private party for discovery well i under the cases you have to come forward with more than just simply saying that a transfer as encumbered their only their asset that the only one that i know to be of substantial value that doesn't preclude the fact and in order to make a plausible claim you have to put forth facts that are not equally consistent plus he's given you the plus from sets she loses this and she's going to declare that hardly suggests that she's got enough assets to cover the obligation again we submit it doesn't say that she will it says that she could nd we submit that and it's a fair point about that the e mail but there still is nothing that shows that this is a probable liability at this point in the game here for ok but that's a this is a completely contingent he could continue to pursue through the courts well the standard is probable it's not contingent in plantaris reply brief they refer to section two hundred and seventy dollars which talks about a creditor as someone who has a contention claim but two we still submit there's no claim even if my client fails on appeal because at the time of the transfer the complaint hasn't set forth any facts that the probable liabilities exceeded  sent there's no allegation under two hundred and seventy five that she subjectively believed that she was going to be liable responsible for these obligations which she had been defending and disputing for years with respect to seventy six there's no specificity as required under rule nine p there is no particularity as to when the transfer made the allegations about badges of fraud they rely on facts that are outside of the complaint they've actually put in a whole section in the complaint in their brief that's outside of the complaint so there are various other problems with this even if my client were not to prevail well let me ask you what effective and the decision the nd department's decision in tao versus stewart has this is the case in which the defended obtained judgment dismissing the plaintiff's creditor claim and while it was on appeal the didn't address whether undecided claims a starbucks or probable liability that's that's my recollection as talk about when the person making it isn't a kid in action either money judgment different from the creditor language of some of the others provisions but it wasn't apparent to me why that makes a difference to the court's analysis well it's a different claim because we submit the to the extent that the  individual and i had fun with no reporting obligations would virtually preclude a forged frontline conveyance action because this knowledge was not obtainable the media two thousand and twelve certain i quote to present a plausible claim and then pleading states the plaintiffs need not show that its allegations are more likely than not true as would be required at later litigation stages such as a defense motion for summary judgment a court ruling on such a motion may not properly dismiss a complaint that states a plausible reversion of the bends merely because the