We reject appellant's claim that, as a participant in a constructive, as opposed to an actual, fraudulent conveyance, he retains a right of pro rata distribution for repayment of antecedent debts (48-48 Assocs. v. Piccoli, 243 A.D.2d 291). We further find that petitioner's status as a creditor with a turnover order from the Supreme Court gives it priority over appellant, since appellant did not obtain the property for fair consideration (CPLR 5202[b]; 5225[b]). Even were appellant able to establish that the funds he transferred from a corporation of which he was the chairman and 80% shareholder were equivalent to the value of the loans he had previously advanced to it, those transfers would still be invalid, inasmuch as preferential transfers to directors, officers and shareholders of insolvent corporations in derogation of the rights of general creditors do not fulfill the requirement of good faith (see Farm Stores, Inc. v. School Feeding Corp., 102 A.D.2d 249, 254, affd 64 N.Y.2d 1065).
We have considered and rejected appellant's remaining contentions.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.