| Gihon, LLC v 501 Second St., LLC |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07311 [77 AD3d 708] |
| October 12, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Gihon, LLC, Respondent, v 501 Second Street, LLC, et al.,Appellants. Norma Vigo, Intervenor-Respondent. |
—[*1] Goldman & Greenbaum, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Martin W. Goldman of counsel), forplaintiff-respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to void a conveyance as fraudulent pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law§§ 273, 273-a, 274, 276, 276-a and 277, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief,from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated December 28,2007, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment declaring theconveyance fraudulent pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273, 273-a and 276.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A litigant may not raise any issue on a subsequent appeal which was raised, or could have beenraised, on an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution (see Bray v Cox, 38NY2d 350 [1976]). Here, the defendant 501 Second Street, LLC, appealed from an order of theSupreme Court, Kings County, dated March 13, 2003. That appeal was dismissed by this Court forlack of prosecution. As we have on three prior appeals, we decline to exercise our discretion todetermine the issues raised on the present appeal which could have been raised on the appeal from theorder dated March 13, 2003 (see Gihon,LLC v 501 Second St., LLC, 51 AD3d 969, 970 [2008]; Gihon, LLC v 501 Second St., LLC, 29AD3d 630 [2006]; Gihon, LLC v 501Second St., LLC, 29 AD3d 628, 628-629 [2006]).
The Supreme Court correctly awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff. The plaintiff presentedsufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that the conveyance of the subject premises wasfraudulent, thereby establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (seeDebtor and Creditor Law §§ 273, 273-a, 276; NPR, LLC v Met Fin Mgt., Inc., 63 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2009]; Davey v Dolan, 46 AD3d 854 [2007];Cadle Co. v Organes Enters., Inc., 29AD3d 927, 928 [2006]). In opposition, the defendants failed to tender evidence in admissibleform sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d557, 562 [1980]; NPR, LLC v Met Fin. Mgt., Inc., 63 AD3d at 1129).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions need not be addressed in light of our determination.[*2]
The defendants' remaining contentions are either not properlybefore this Court or without merit. Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.