In this case, the complete lack of supporting evidence regarding the defendants' explanation of the transfer in June of 2007 does not rebut the initial showing that the transfer was made with actual intent "to hinder, delay or defraud" the plaintiff creditor. See, Kreisler Borg Florman Gen. Const. Co., Inc. v Tower 56 LLC, 58 AD3d 694 (2d Dept 2009); Roth v Porush, 281 AD2d 612 (2d Dept. 2001); Dillon v Dean, 236 AD2d 360 (2d Dept. 1997); Spielvogel v Welborne, 175 AD2d 830 (2d Dept. 1991); see also, Joslinv Lopez, 309 AD2d 837 (2d Dept. 2003).
In this case, the complete lack of supporting evidence regarding the defendants' explanation of the transfer in June of 2007 does not rebut the initial showing that the transfer was made with actual intent "to hinder, delay or defraud" the plaintiff creditor. See, Kreisler Borg Florman Gen. Const. Co., Inc. v Tower 56 LLC, 58 AD3d 694 (2d Dept 2009); Roth v Porush, 281 AD2d 612 (2d Dept. 2001); Dillon v Dean, 236 AD2d 360 (2d Dept. 1997); Spielvogel v Welborne, 175 AD2d 830 (2d Dept. 1991); see also, Joslin v Lopez, 309 AD2d 837 (2d Dept. 2003).