The documentary evidence adduced by the action No. 2 defendants showed that plaintiff-appellant duly transferred the subject real property in November 1996 so as to avoid the judicial process brought against her by reason of the many serious violations issued against the premises as well as to escape imprisonment for criminal contempt. Plaintiff's unsupported assertion that the 1996 transfer was induced by fraud was insufficient to raise any triable issue (see Gilbert...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
