hoping for a favorable decision. What the Debtor is seeking to do is exactly what collateral estoppel seeks to prevent: the continuous relitigation of the same issues and the exhaustion of judicial resources. 1. The First Three Causes of Action Having concluded that collateral estoppel should be invoked and that the Debtor had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues, this Court will now set forth how it came to its conclusion with respect to each of the causes of action. The Debtor’s first three causes of action allege that the Wrap Mortgage constituted a fraudulent conveyance under DCL §§ 273, 274, and 275. An essential element of a claim pursuant to DCL §§ 273, 274, and 275 is lack of fair consideration. Atlanta Shipping v. Chemical Bank, 818 F.2d 240, 248 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). This issue of whether there was consideration
holding that the exception for repayment of an insiders antecedent debt did not apply to a debtors conveyance of two mortgages to a former officer regardless of whether she was a corporate insider because each of her mortgages secured a contemporaneous advance of funds not a preexisting debt holding that a preexisting or antecedent debt may constitute sufficient consideration to support a mortgage holding that the repayment of an antecedent debt constitutes fair consideration recognizing debt cancellation as consideration holding that an antecedent debt constitutes value for the granting of a security interest and citing 550 les mouches fashions