Unclean Hands

In this action to impose a constructive trust upon certain real
property, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint
based on the doctrine of unclean hands, and the plaintiff failed to
raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion. Indeed, the
plaintiff conceded that he voluntarily participated in a scheme whereby
title to the subject property, in which he claims to have an ownership
interest, was conveyed to the defendants Philip Borck and Marilyn Borck
(hereinafter the Borcks) in foreclosure in order to place the property
beyond the reach of the plaintiff's judgment creditors, while the
plaintiff retained the beneficial ownership of the premises. Given the
plaintiff's admitted involvement in this alleged arrangement to convey
the property to frustrate his creditors in the collection of their
legitimate debts, his claim that the Borcks now should be compelled to
convey title to the premises to him pursuant to the terms of that
arrangement is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands (see Festinger v Edrich, 32 AD3d 412, 414; Moo Wei Wong v Wong, 293 AD2d 387; Walker v Walker, 289 AD2d 225, 226; Zimberg v Zimberg, 268 AD2d 232; Lagonegro v Lagonegro, [*2]187 AD2d 490; Ta Chun Wang v Chun Wong, 163 AD2d 300, cert denied 501 US 1252; Muscarella v Muscarella, 93
AD2d 993). In this regard, the question of whether the Borcks knew of
the fraudulent purpose of the transaction is irrelevant (see Pattison v Pattison, 301 NY 65, 72; Vasquez v Zambrano, 196 AD2d 840).