| Phillips v Isaiah Owens Funeral Serv., Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00490 [69 AD3d 822] |
| January 19, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Glenda Phillips, Appellant, v Isaiah Owens FuneralService, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Tuthill Finance, L.P., et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Robinowitz Cohlan Dubow & Doherty, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Bruce Minkoff ofcounsel), respondent pro se and for respondents Tuthill Finance, L.P., Wainco, Inc., JeffreyWain, and John T. Doherty. Edward C. Kesselman, New York, N.Y. (Douglas M. Lieberman of counsel), for respondentPeople's Bank.
In an action, inter alia, to set aside fraudulent conveyances pursuant to Debtor and CreditorLaw article 10, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Vaughan, J.), dated February 20, 2008, which granted that branch of the motion of thedefendants Tuthill Finance, L.P., Wainco, Inc., Jeffrey Wain, Robinowitz Cohlan Dubow &Doherty, LLP, and John T. Doherty which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaintinsofar as asserted against them, and (2) an order of the same court dated July 16, 2008, whichgranted the motion of the defendant People's Bank for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against it, and declaring that its mortgage lien was superior to theplaintiff's judgment lien.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondentsappearing separately and filing separate briefs.
That branch of the motion of the defendants Tuthill Finance, L.P., Wainco, Inc., JeffreyWain, Robinowitz Cohlan Dubow & Doherty, LLP, and John T. Doherty (hereinafter the Tuthilldefendants) which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst them, and the motion of the defendant People's Bank, inter alia, for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, were properly granted, as the movantsestablished that the mortgage loan and assignment of mortgage at issue were supported by fairconsideration and made in good faith and, therefore, the Tuthill defendants and People's Bankcannot be held liable for any fraudulent conveyance in connection with any of the transactionscomplained of (see Murphy v Briggs, 89 NY 446 [1882]). The plaintiff's conclusoryclaims in opposition to that branch of the motion of the Tuthill defendants, and to the [*2]motion of People's Bank, were insufficient to defeat that branch ofthe Tuthill defendants' motion and the motion of the People's Bank, respectively (seeFreedman v Chemical Constr. Corp., 43 NY2d 260 [1977]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Hall andSgroi, JJ., concur.