Opinion
May 18, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion and set aside the conveyances of three parcels of real property made in February 1991 by the defendant Louis Manzo to his daughter, the defendant Stasia Manzo, for no consideration and after his corporation had defaulted on one note and was about to default on another. The finding that the conveyances were made with actual intent to "hinder, delay or defraud" the plaintiff is supported by evidence that Louis Manzo, who was the personal guarantor on the notes, had engaged in this type of transfer of real property to his daughters previously, in other cases involving different properties and creditors, and by the cash flow problems experienced by Manzo and his corporation around the time of the defaults ( see, Debtor and Creditor Law § 276; Pen Pak Corp. v. LaSalle Natl. Bank, 240 A.D.2d 384; Dillon v. Dean, 236 A.D.2d 360, 361; Matter of AMEV Capital Corp. v. Kirk, 180 A.D.2d 775; Marine Midland Bank v. Murkoff, 120 A.D.2d 122, 126). The defendants' rebuttal evidence regarding Louis Manzo's financial ability and his antecedent debts to Stasia Manzo, which allegedly constituted the consideration for the three conveyances, consisted of unsubstantiated assertions and was inadequate to defeat the plaintiff's clear and convincing evidence of actual intent to defraud ( see, Bank of N.Y. v. Cherico, 209 A.D.2d 914; Matter of Big Z Car Wash Corp. v. Moon Ja Oh, 149 A.D.2d 418).
Friedmann, J.P., Goldstein, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.