Case Name: Somer & Wand, P. C., Plaintiff, v. Pia Rotondi et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.); Pia Rotondi et al., Respondents, v. Somer & Wand, P. C., et al., Defendants, and Stanley J. Somer et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1996-05-13
Citations: 227 A.D.2d 466
Docket Number: 
Parties: Somer & Wand, P. C., Plaintiff, v Pia Rotondi et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Pia Rotondi et al., Respondents, v Somer & Wand, P. C., et al., Defendants, and Stanley J. Somer et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 227
Pages: 466–466

Head Matter:
Somer & Wand, P. C., Plaintiff, v Pia Rotondi et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Pia Rotondi et al., Respondents, v Somer & Wand, P. C., et al., Defendants, and Stanley J. Somer et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)
[643 NYS2d 363]

Opinion:
In an action pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law article 10 (Action No. 2), to set aside the conveyance of certain real property, the defendants Stanley J. and Batía L. Somer appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated December 14, 1994, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants for the reasons stated in Somer & Wand, P. C. v Rotondi (219 AD2d 340). Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.