Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them for failure to state a cause of action. The allegations of the complaint sufficiently set forth a cause of action based upon a fraudulent conveyance under Debtor and Creditor Law § 276 Debt. Cred., which provides that "[e]very conveyance made and every obligation incurred with actual intent, as distinguished from intent presumed in law, to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors, is fraudulent as to both present and future creditors". Thus, contrary to the appellants' contention, the plain language of the statute reaches conveyances intended to defraud future creditors, including conveyances which occurred prior to the time the obligation to the plaintiff arose (see, Kashan v. Kosoff, 112 A.D.2d 350; Bein v. Baer, 7 Misc.2d 543; see also, United States v. Cohn, 682 F. Supp. 209). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.