Case Name: Barclays Bank of New York, N.A., Respondent, v. Phil Recupero et al., Defendants, and Jack Vecchiarelli et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1991-01-22
Citations: 169 A.D.2d 752
Docket Number: 
Parties: Barclays Bank of New York, N.A., Respondent, v Phil Recupero et al., Defendants, and Jack Vecchiarelli et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 169
Pages: 752–753

Head Matter:
Barclays Bank of New York, N.A., Respondent, v Phil Recupero et al., Defendants, and Jack Vecchiarelli et al., Appellants.

Opinion:
In an action to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, the defendants Jack and Suzanne Vecchiarelli appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered November 29, 1988, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against them.
Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, we find that the plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that the conveyance made by the defendant Jack Vecchiarelli to his wife, the defendant Suzanne Vecchiarelli, was fraudulent as that term is defined in Debtor and Creditor Law § 273. Thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to the drastic remedy of summary judgment (see, Fox v Wyeth Labs., 129 AD2d 611). Brown, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.