| Sorenson v 257/117 Realty, LLC |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04163 [62 AD3d 618] |
| May 28, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Sigurd A. Sorenson, Appellant, v 257/117 Realty, LLC, etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Balber Pickard Maldonado & Van Der Tuin, PC., New York (Roger Juan Maldonado ofcounsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered April 7, 2008,which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, cancelled thenotice of pendency, and imposed sanctions against plaintiff and his attorney in the amount of$2,500 each, and costs and attorneys' fees in the amount of $16,386, unanimously affirmed,without costs.
In this action alleging fraudulent conveyance, plaintiff failed to establish "actual intent, asdistinguished from intent presumed in law, to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or futurecreditors" (Debtor and Creditor Law § 276; see P.A. Bldg. Co. v Elwyn D. Lieberman,Inc., 227 AD2d 277 [1996]; O'Brien-Kreitzberg & Assoc. v K.P., Inc., 218 AD2d519 [1995]). Inasmuch as the conveyance of the subject building was specifically subject toplaintiff's rights in a related fraud action (see Sorenson v Bridge Capital Corp., 52 AD3d 265 [2008],appeal dismissed 12 NY3d 748 [2009]), there was no showing of fraud or intent todefraud because the parties to the conveyance had taken steps to ensure that any potentialjudgment would be satisfied (see GracePlaza of Great Neck v Heitzler, 2 AD3d 780 [2003]).
The claim under Debtor and Creditor Law § 273 of the statute was also properlydismissed as the building was transferred for "other good and valuable consideration," whichincluded the cost of completion of the building, and the conveyance did not render defendantsinsolvent.
The notice of pendency was properly cancelled once the court determined that plaintiff'sclaims were baseless (see Gallagher Removal Serv. v Duchnowski, 179 AD2d 622, 623[1992]). The lack of merit to this action warranted the court's imposition of sanctions, costs andattorney's fees (22 NYCRR 130-1.1).[*2]
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments andfind them without merit. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Renwick andAbdus-Salaam, JJ.