With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not possibly have been injured by the transfer and therefore cannot seek to set aside or disregard the conveyance. The New York courts, like courts in other jurisdictions, have seldom used the explicit “proof of injury” language in cases under the UFCA. Perhaps, as Kreditt-Finans has pointed out, this is because creditors ordinarily do not seek to invalidate transactions that cause them no injury and accordingly the question arises only infrequently. However, at least one New York appellate court has held that under the UFCA “creditors have causes of action only to the extent to which they have been damaged.” Buckley Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Goldman, 28 A.D.2d 640, 641, 280 N.Y.S.2d 876, 878 (1967). See Suffolk & Nassau Amusement Co. v. Ambrose, 145 N.Y.S.2d 424 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1955) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, numerous courts in other

A: holding that debtors cannot claim an exemption in a homestead after trustee avoided the transfer of the property as a fraudulent conveyance because the transfer by the debtors was voluntary
B: holding that even though a transfer of property eg money incidentally benefits another it cannot be said as a matter of law or logic that the transaction was a fraudulent transfer as to the party benefited
C: holding that a plaintiff who has not sustained any damage as the result of a transfer of property cannot seek to set that transfer aside as fraudulent
D: recognizing potential for fraudulent transfer in foreclosure context if debtor enjoyed significant equity in property but received little or no value from the transfer
C.