Case 1:12-cv SLT-VVP Document 23 Filed 03/31/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 306. Plaintiffs, 12-CV-1428 (SLT)(VVP)

Similar documents
Case 1:14-cv PKC-PK Document 93 Filed 01/03/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 934

Case 1:14-cv ARR-SMG Document 44 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 271

Plaintiff, : : : : John Sgaliordich is an individual investor who alleges that various investment

Indo-Med Commodities, Inc. v Wisell 2014 NY Slip Op 33918(U) September 29, 2014 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: /14 Judge: F.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER

Case 1:12-cv CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12

Case 3:18-cv AET-LHG Document 61 Filed 06/08/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 972 : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Defendant Mitchell Stern (Stern) moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary

Case: 4:15-cv RWS Doc. #: 30 Filed: 05/04/15 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 183

Case 1:15-cv JMF Document 9 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 14

Case: 1:08-cv Document #: 97 Filed: 09/17/10 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1045

Case 6:14-cv CEM-TBS Document 31 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1331

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/01/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2017

Case 1:06-cv RAE Document 36 Filed 01/09/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

;~~i~i~s~o~-;~-~~~-~~,-~~~~-;;~~ ~ ji DATE FILE!:):

Case 2:13-cv KAM-AKT Document 124 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2044

Case 2:06-cv JS-WDW Document 18 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 13. Plaintiffs,

Case 1:11-cv LG -RHW Document 32 Filed 12/08/11 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

In this diversity action for money damages, Plaintiff Lydian Private Bank, d/b/a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION NO. 5:14-CV-17-BR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:06-cv JSR Document 69 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 11. x : : : : : : : : : x. In this action, plaintiff New York University ( NYU ) alleges

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * KIRK and AMY HENRY, ) ) 2:08-CV PMP-GWF ) Plaintiffs, ) ORDER ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Nos ; Non-Argument Calendar

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS WESTERN DIVISION

Panzella v. County of Nassau et al Doc. 73. On October II, 2013, plaintiff Christine Panzella ("plaintiff') commenced this civil

Plaintiff, Defendants.

Case 1:14-cv LTS Document 41 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. JOHN R. GAMMINO, Plaintiff, Civ. No MEMORANDUM/ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CARL S.

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 171 Filed: 09/30/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:5200

Case 1:06-cv RAE Document 38 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Case 0:06-cv JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/27/2013 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x In re: Chapter 11

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Debtor. Case No Chapter 7

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

Case 1:10-cv CFL Document 41 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

United States District Court District of Massachusetts

Case 2:08-cv PMP -GWF Document 536 Filed 07/28/11 Page 1 of 10

No CV IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS. Appellants, Appellee. APPELLEE S OPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AS MOOT

Case 1:04-cv RHB Document 171 Filed 08/11/2005 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Pending before the Court is the Partial Motion for Summary Judgment filed by

Tribeca Space Mgrs., Inc. v Tribeca Mews Ltd NY Slip Op 32433(U) December 23, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /13

Present: HONORABLE ORIN R. KITZES IA Part 17 Justice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

Case 1:15-cv DJC Document 80 Filed 09/12/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER

Plaintiff United States of America ( plaintiff ) commenced this action seeking payment for the indebtedness of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :25 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2014

Case: 1:16-cv CAB Doc #: 26 Filed: 11/14/17 1 of 7. PageID #: 316 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.

Plaintiff (s), MOTION DATE: 1/14/05. Defendant (s).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Alexandria Division

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case No. 2:15-bk-20206, Adversary Proceeding No. 2:15-ap United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston. March 28, 2016.

Amsterdam Assoc. LLC v Alianza LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 30156(U) January 15, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:14-cv JSR Document 58 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 7. Lead plaintiffs Joseph Ebin and Yeruchum Jenkins bring this

Case 1:15-cv JCC-TCB Document 34 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID# 357

No. 1:13-ap Doc 308 Filed 09/12/16 Entered 09/12/16 14:53:27 Page 1 of 8

Plaintiff, : : : : : Defendant. : : : : : Third-Party Plaintiff, : Third-Party Defendant. :

Case 1:14-cv JG-PK Document 62 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1202

-JMA CSX Transportation, Inc., v. Filco Carting Corp. Doc. 22. Plaintiff CS){ Transportation Inc. ("CSX') brings this action against Defendant Filco

Case 1:10-cv LTS-GWG Document 223 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 14. No. 10 Civ. 954 (LTS)(GWG)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 113 Filed: 10/11/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:947

Case 1:17-cv DPG Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:14-cv FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES EX REL. ROBINSON-HILL V. NURSES' REGISTRY & HOME HEALTH CORP.

Case 2:17-cv MSG Document 7 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV

Case 1:15-cv RJS Document 20 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 11

Carlyle, LLC v Quik Park 1633 Garage LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 32476(U) December 15, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /15 Judge:

Doral Fabrics, Inc. v Gold 2016 NY Slip Op 31772(U) September 27, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge: Marcy

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:84

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:12-cv RJD-RLM Document 89 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioners, 10-CV-5256 (KMW) (DCF) -against- OPINION & ORDER GOVERNMENT OF THE LAO PEOPLE S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC,

Jan 24, Dear : The following is a summary of the transaction described in your letter:

McNamara v. City of Nashua 08-CV-348-JD 02/09/10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Case Document 763 Filed in TXSB on 11/06/18 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:15-cv KBJ Document 16 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv NMG Document 60 Filed 09/27/18 Page 1 of 18. United States District Court District of Massachusetts

Case: 1:11-cv Document #: 142 Filed: 11/23/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:2876

Case tnw Doc 41 Filed 03/21/16 Entered 03/22/16 09:16:29 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 8 JEREMEY C. ROY CASE NO

Gliklad v Kessler 2016 NY Slip Op 31301(U) July 7, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Anil C. Singh Cases posted

Transcription:

Case 1:12-cv-01428-SLT-VVP Document 23 Filed 03/31/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 306 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x ANALOGIC CORPORATION and BK MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., -against- Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 12-CV-1428 (SLT)(VVP) GREGORY MANUELIAN, ANIE M. MANUELIAN, and HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION (USA), Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------x TOWNES, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs Analogic Corporation ( Analogic ) and BK Medical Systems, Inc. ( BK ) (collectively, Plaintiffs ) bring this diversity action against Gregory and Anie M. Manuelian (collectively, Defendants ), alleging the fraudulent conveyance of an interest in real property. Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment as to their second claim for relief under New York Debtor and Creditor Law ( DCL ) 273. Defendants argue that this claim is time-barred. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion is granted. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts The following facts are not in dispute unless otherwise indicated. 1. Criminal Scheme Analogic, through its Danish subsidiary, manufactures diagnostic ultrasound systems for medical professionals. (56.1 Stmt. 2). These products are imported into the United States and distributed by BK, a subsidiary of the Danish company. (56.1 Stmt. 3). In 1980, BK retained Marquis Clearance Services Ltd. ( Marquis ) as a customs broker for its imports. (56.1 Stmt.

Case 1:12-cv-01428-SLT-VVP Document 23 Filed 03/31/14 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 307 12). An employee of Marquis, Gregory Manuelian ( Gregory ) became a licensed customs broker in 1985, an officer of Marquis in 1993, and sole owner in 2006. (56.1 Stmt. 4-6). Gregory s role as a customs broker was to help clients clear goods through customs, which often included preparing paper or electronic submissions as well as calculating and paying taxes or duties for the clients shipments. (56.1 Stmt. 7). Gregory, on behalf of Marquis, typically paid any duties and routine charges on the imported goods and then faxed an invoice to BK, listing the goods and pre-payments. (56.1 Stmt. 13). Based upon these invoices, BK reimbursed Marquis for the duties and paid the brokerage service fee. (56.1 Stmt. 14). Gregory would then mail BK a copy of the invoice and what purported to be a copy of the customs form filed with the appropriate federal agency. (56.1 Stmt. 15). In 1996, the United States began phasing out duties on such medical equipment exported from Denmark, and by 1999 these products could be imported duty free. (56.1 Stmt. 16). Exploiting this change, Gregory engaged in a scheme from 1996 through 2006 to defraud BK by representing through false invoices and customs forms that Marquis was paying duties that were, in reality, no longer due. (56.1 Stmt. 17-19). During the course of this scheme, Gregory induced BK to pay $1,188,886.97 to Marquis. (56.1 Stmt. 25). From 1996 through 2008, Gregory personally withdrew and depleted the money he stole from Plaintiffs. (56.1 Stmt. 26). 2. Prior Litigation In December 2006, Plaintiffs discovered the irregularities during a review of export costs and thereafter contacted federal criminal authorities. (56.1 Stmt. 27). In October 2008, Gregory was arrested and indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on eight counts of wire fraud and four counts of forgery of customs forms. 2

Case 1:12-cv-01428-SLT-VVP Document 23 Filed 03/31/14 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 308 Gregory pleaded guilty to all counts. (56.1 Stmt. 29). In addition to a term of imprisonment, Gregory was ordered to make restitution of $1,188,886.97 plus interest to Analogic and to pay an assessment of $1,200. (56.1 Stmt. 31, 32). Gregory surrendered to custody in March 2010 and in June 2010, the court denied his motion to alter the judgment. (56.1 Stmt. 34, 35). Plaintiffs claim that Gregory has failed to make any restitution, but for $88,000 turned over from his IRA account; Gregory asserts that he has made $95,451 available from his assets. (56.1 Stmt. & Counterstmt. 36). Plaintiffs subsequently commenced an action in this Court seeking to hold Marquis liable for losses due to the crimes committed by Gregory, and on September 7, 2011, the Court granted a default judgment against Marquis for $1,248,103.30. (See 10-CV-3801 (SJ) (Docket Nos. 16, 17)). To date, no part of that judgment has been paid. 3. The Property On September 14, 1989, Gregory took title to real property located at 19 Oaktree Lane, Manhasset, New York (the Property ), which included a single family house. (56.1 Stmt. & Counterstmt. 44). On March 6, 2002, while conducting his scheme to defraud Plaintiffs, Gregory executed a deed purporting to convey the Property to his wife, Anie M. Manuelian ( Anie ) and himself, as tenants by the entirety. (56.1 Stmt. 45). The deed was recorded, but not delivered to or accepted by Anie. (56.1 Stmt. 46). Indeed, Anie had no knowledge of the deed until September 2007, when Gregory told her about it in the wake of his arrest. (56.1 Stmt. 47). At the time of transfer of interest to Anie, Gregory was insolvent or was thereby rendered insolvent. (56.1 Stmt. 51). Additionally, Gregory did not receive fair consideration as defined in DCL 272 for his conveyance of an interest in the Property to Anie. (56.1 Stmt. 3

Case 1:12-cv-01428-SLT-VVP Document 23 Filed 03/31/14 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 309 52). On May 12, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a transcript of the judgment against Gregory with the Nassau County Clerk and thereby acquired a lean on all real property located in that county in which Gregory has an interest. (56.1 Stmt. 42). As of 2010, the Property had an assessed market value of $1,189,400, with a home equity line of credit balance of approximately $170,000. (56.1 Stmt. 50). B. Procedural History On March 23, 2012, Plaintiffs commenced this diversity action against Defendants as well as HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) ( HSBC ), asserting five claims under New York Debtor and Creditor Laws. (Docket No. 1). On January 18, 2013, Plaintiffs dismissed all claims against HSBC. (Docket No. 14). Now before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment only as to their second claim under 273, seeking to set aside as a fraudulent conveyance the deed by which Gregory conveyed an interest in the Property to his wife, Anie. (Docket No. 19). II. LEGAL STANDARD When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving all ambiguities in his favor. See Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Jones Chem. Inc., 315 F.3d 171, 175 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). A court s role is not to resolve disputed issues of fact but to assess whether there are any factual issues to be tried. Goldberg & Connolly v. N.Y. Cmty. Bancorp, Inc., 565 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2009). Indeed, summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine 4

Case 1:12-cv-01428-SLT-VVP Document 23 Filed 03/31/14 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 310 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Doninger v. Niehof, 642 F.3d 334, 344 (2d Cir. 2011). III. DISCUSSION A. DCL 273 In their second cause of action, Plaintiffs claim that the transfer of the Property was fraudulent as to both present and future creditors of Gregory, including plaintiffs, in violation of 273, and should be set aside. (Compl. 67). Section 273 provides in relevant part that: Every conveyance made... by a person who is or will be thereby rendered insolvent is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to his actual intent if the conveyance is made... without a fair consideration. To prevail on a 273 constructive fraud claim, a plaintiff therefore must show by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) a conveyance (2) without fair consideration (3) by a person who is insolvent or who becomes insolvent as a consequence of the transfer. Lippe v. Bairnco Corp., 249 F. Supp. 2d 357, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d 310, 323 (2d Cir. 1994)). Defendants concede that Plaintiffs have established these elements. (See 56.1 Stmt. 45, 51, 52). 1 Defendants argue, however, that Plaintiffs 273 claim is timebarred. 1 To the extent Gregory insists he had no intention to frustrate plaintiffs ability to recoup the moneys he admittedly took from them, (Defs. Opp. at 2), that argument is of no moment to the 273 claim. The good faith component of the fair consideration inquiry is the good faith of the transferee, as opposed to, in the case of actual fraud under [DCL] 276, the good faith of the transferor. Lippe, 249 F. Supp. 2d at 377 (citing HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank, 61 F.3d 1054, 1059 n.5 (2d Cir. 1995)) (emphasis added). See DCL 272. 5

Case 1:12-cv-01428-SLT-VVP Document 23 Filed 03/31/14 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 311 B. Statute of Limitations Claims brought pursuant to 273 are governed by a six-year statute of limitations period which accrues at the time of the fraudulent conveyance. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass n v. Olympia Mortg. Corp., No. 04-CV-4971 (NG) (MDG), 2011 WL 9933496, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2011) (citing N.Y. C.P.L.R. 213(1); Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB, v. Makkas, 67 A.D.3d 950, 952 (2d Dep t 2009)). In this case, the parties dispute when, as a legal matter, the deed was actually conveyed. Defendants contend that conveyance occurred when Gregory executed the deed in March 2002, more than 10 years prior to the commencement of this action. (Defs. Opp. at 3). Plaintiffs argue that the claim instead accrued in September 2007, well within the six-year limitations period, when Anie first learned that Gregory had deeded her an interest in the Property as tenants by the entirety. (Pls. Mem. at 3). Under New York Law, [a] grant takes effect, so as to vest the estate or interest intended to be conveyed, only from its delivery; and all the rules of law, now in force, in respect to the delivery of deeds, apply to grants hereafter executed. Real Property Law 244 (emphasis added). In 1909, when 244 was enacted, the common law contemplated that delivery encompassed both presentment and acceptance. M & T Real Estate Trust v. Doyle, 20 N.Y.3d 563, 567 (2013); see In re Smith, 469 B.R. 198, 202 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ( In New York, a conveyance in property is valid if the deed is executed, acknowledged, delivered and accepted. ); In re Ellison Associates, 63 B.R. 756, 761 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) ( New York requires an unconditional delivery of a deed by the grantor and an unconditional acceptance by the grantee to effect the transfer of title to property. ); Ten Eyck v. Whitbeck, 156 N.Y. 341, 352 (1898) ( The delivery of a deed is essential to the transfer of title, and there can be no delivery without an acceptance by the grantee. ). 6

Case 1:12-cv-01428-SLT-VVP Document 23 Filed 03/31/14 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 312 Moreover, while there is a presumption that a deed was delivered and accepted as of its date... this presumption must yield to opposing evidence. Janian v. Barnes, 284 A.D.2d 717, 718 (3rd Dep t 2001) (internal citations omitted). Such a determination typically involves an issue of fact. Id. In this case, however, it is undisputed that there was no acceptance by Anie and therefore no conveyance until at least September 2007, when Gregory first told her about the deed. Plaintiffs 273 fraudulent conveyance claim is therefore timely and, as the material facts establishing the claim are not contested, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted. The Court need not consider the alternative grounds. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to their second claim under New York Debtor and Creditor Law 273 (Docket No. 19) is GRANTED. Accordingly, the deed by which defendant Gregory Manuelian conveyed an interest in the real property located at 19 Oaktree Lane, Manhasset, New York, to defendant Anie M. Manuelian as tenants by the entirety is hereby set aside to the extent necessary to satisfy Plaintiffs judgment. SO ORDERED. /S/ SANDRA L. TOWNES United States District Judge Dated: March 31, 2014 Brooklyn, New York 7