Case Name: Marisa S.-H., Respondent, v. Christopher H., Appellant, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-07-11
Citations: 152 A.D.3d 426
Docket Number: 
Parties: Marisa S.-H., Respondent, v Christopher H., Appellant, et al., Defendants.
Judges: Concur — Friedman, J.R, Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 426–427

Head Matter:
Marisa S.-H., Respondent, v Christopher H., Appellant, et al., Defendants.
[58 NYS3d 47]—

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 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.