Opinion
OPINION
Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs.
It was the duty of the appellants to inquire as to whether the proceeds obtained through the use of a trust asset were to be used for the ultimate benefit of the trust ( see, Dye v Lewis, 40 A.D.2d 582, affd sub nom. Dye v Lincoln Rochester Trust Co., 31 N.Y.2d 1012). Since the appellants had reason to know that the conveyance was made in contravention of the trust, the transaction is void (see, EPTL 7-2.4; see also, National Sur. Co. v Manhattan Mtge. Co., 185 App Div 733, 736-737, affd 230 N.Y. 545; Boskowitz v Held, 15 App Div 306, 310-311, affd 153 N.Y. 666).
The appellants' remaining contentions are either without merit or are not properly before this Court as they are raised for the first time on appeal (see, Green Point Sav. Bank v Oppenheim, 217 A.D.2d 571).
O'Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.