Ragusa v. Ragusa
Opinion of the Court
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 5, 1977, the plaintiff former wife ap
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly confirmed the report of the Judicial Hearing Officer, recommending that the motion to set aside the defendant’s transfer of his interest in certain real property located in Brooklyn be, in effect, denied. The plaintiff failed sufficiently to allege or demonstrate the elements required under Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273-a and 276 (see Matter of Mega Personal Lines, Inc. v Halton, 9 AD3d 553, 555 [2004]; Farkas v D’Oca, 305 AD2d 237 [2003]; cf. Dempster v Overview Equities, 4 AD3d 495, 497 [2004]; Petersen v Valenzano, 285 AD2d 635, 636 [2001]; Miller v Miller, 276 AD2d 758 [2000]; Neshewat v Salem, 365 F Supp 2d 508, 518-519 [2005]). Nor was the plaintiffs proof sufficient, in any event, to establish the existence of child support arrears (see Miller v Miller, 18 AD3d 629, 630 [2005]). Crane, J.P., Mastro, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.