are you ready mr barry thank you you know it's pretty well that there's a reason they're being argued in tandem it's because they're very very similar cases are based on the same in part on the same factual scenario that these concerned different causes of action r right and this is the suit against the buyer correct there are effectively two claims mean there are three but one of which is essentially mooted because mr phillips is shown that he paid a reasonable value so that your remaining claims are the rejecting the fraudulent conveyance claim the intentional project advanced claim because it held that the phone call that we've just been discussed in the other case was not a badge of specifically there's argument in phil's brief miss braverman his lawyer did nothing wrong by suggesting this cause if you look because she wanted a clarification from court personnel what is incorrect about that mean  she didn't control how the call was made or whether there was a motion or whether or not slowly or whether you participated in that call in the record if you look at the e mails she was there was a plan for her to be on the call including e mails exchanged a few minutes before the call she seemed to indicate that she was going to be on the call and she turned out that she wasn't or at least not on the hook up that we know about but she was involved in planning it she insisted it was true or idea and she's a lawyer like mr what evidence is that she had knowledge that there wouldn't be opposing counsel on the call as well that was going to be an ex parte call what evidence is there that because there was there is he e mails on the record about setting up a call just setting it up doesn't mean told mr philips by email that mr philips counsel if the labs find out about this they're going to do what they did on bedford street come in pay the taxes and then claim and then file and you notice  so it's not bad faith to say i want to get clarification from the court right i want clarification from the court is bad and valid evidence that she wanted to walk into the pelt division and get this when she sees the when she sees the accounts mr ackerman she felt the road she makes to those accounts make it clear that we were not a cause nevertheless philips releases the property mr phillips himself and whether he had actual or should knowledge or should have known of these plans when evidence is in the record is earlier our position is that there's no evidence that he was in on this in  even a prior breach does not preclude a tortious interference claim and here it's important to distinguish between the two to type two parts the contract there was the promise that he paid repay the loans or deliver mortgages and the restrictive covenant which says you can't mortgage it to anybody else restrictive covenant only  i'm going to start very quickly with mr barry did not cite any record when he was talking about lori braverman and my client's closing attorney i don't know what he was referring to my client michael phillips had a closing attorney laurie she only does closings she didn't doesn't do it again and she didn't know what was going on and there was an understanding that she would just want to clarification it was ok to close that was all she was asking for now  she would be ok to close she's very careful i've known her for a very long time she's just careful she wanted to make sure it was ok to close and it was and the other point i want to make and i' me judge winters referring to the mediation attorneys who are on the circuit staff and that engage in mediation with the parties and he's asking whether they have already to clarify the circuit's orders ok i was at most arenas deposition when she was question she was very clear that she did nothing on that is your your answering you don't know about what the camp attorneys have authority to do but i suspect it's not to interpret over i do because there was no question in front of her there was not no legal question there was no she had no she had nothing in front of her but to answer a question about what something means and she said at the devastation it was really just that interim relief and when the full bench decides the motion this is a law school comment that's what she said she told them i don't see that there's any analysis any decision anything into eyes or if she wasn't involved in anything and all very very very good listen listen to  it was braverman who was looking to close on this and she wanted litigation lawyers to just tell her what it meant and it was ok to close and that was all she did it's my client's lawyer she just wanted clarification from other attorneys she had no idea what was going on with the call she wasn't part of the call she wasn't anything other than asking for clarity suggested that she learned after the fact that there that about the call that there was something improper about the call that ma maybe she may not know in advance but after the call they certainly knew something improper was done with your response that you know i pay with all due respect i don't see there was anything wrong with the call because nothing changed the i'd also just like to say that the knobs have never had a right to this apartment they have money damages only they've never had a right to have a piece of it to be part of it it's never been anything like that regardless of what anyone says  you very much we have the argument that concludes your time the red light is on mr sanford you have five minutes braun try to get a prism attachment which i explained in july th in failed so his argument which is strange if you think about it and if you understand the premise of fellow ups's that we sold it for  unfair consideration that's only after it's sold but before it's sold he has a different tactic which he actually admits readily no buyer in his right mind is going to pay full value and walk into his mess i need to comment he said sanford is a predilection to selling this is my home but i found i purchased i put the only money down there was no one else in the contract it was mine i was the living there proposition that a person's property they're free to use unless it judgment against that person there was never a judgment against me or pursuit so he says it's inconceivable would notice the pendency at issue for two or three years  condo and someone from the board says he wants a different space you've got a great space the whole buy it he's the only one because we couldn't renovate because there were so many lawsuits so many threats everyone was terrified but after mr phillips bought it he then got sued and the claim was insufficient consideration when the corollary before was no one's going to buy it because their tiny drop of was penances so they used the self help remedy to tie me up when that didn't work they sued pursue went into bankruptcy protection because we couldn't sell the other asset we had because every title company is in the record a letter from the title company in philips every title company was afraid to insure the other property which i had no c on because they were fraid of being sued by the nubs there are only three major title companies in new york so they brought the value of my asset which had no judgment at that time to zero we persue into bankruptcy and on the day we do it judge bianco had the case still had had it for decision ninet process here's the key there is an offset and a written mechanism in new york state that if they don't have proof documentary form or they're not acting in good faith but wish to be cancelled they never  secured loan they never had a mortgage never any of these things so they had every reason to cancel and there was also the bad thing but then they were supposed to pay the damages the nose the pendency you know cancellation fees all the legal fees by suing the lawyers it moved for that no one ever moved for that and that's why i proceeded to go into bankruptcy thank you they have abused every part of the process thank you thank you your honors thank you for your patience mr berry i have two minutes nothing in those that indicate that she knew that it was going to be an ex party called nothing indicating one way or the other however after the call there philip's team misled the title company about some important things there was no disclosure according to the title company when and when deposed of the grant of summary judgment enough favor title company of the october twenty two just to anywhere this lead the title company to inquire further about the status of the case it looked and saw online a mr sanford and he tells the title company tells the insurer that the reason that he won the case and the conference for fair scheduled for february th was on his damages company thank you very much i think we have the arguments we certainly have your papers and that is the last argument to be heard this morning and so th