Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The appellant, whose fraudulent conveyance to his wife of his interest in the subject homestead has been judicially set aside (see, AMEV Capital Corp. v. Kirk, 180 A.D.2d 775 [decided herewith]), asserts in this proceeding that an execution sale of his interest in the homestead would be unfair and, that it is designed to annoy and harass his wife. However, although the appellant's wife is a defendant in the action to set aside the fraudulent conveyance, her interest in the real property would not be affected by the sale (cf., Gasko v. Del Ventura, 96 A.D.2d 896). Moreover, the petitioner's attempts to collect the substantial amounts owed have been repeatedly frustrated. In short, there are no circumstances in this case on which an order staying the execution sale might appropriately be premised (cf., CPLR 5240; see, Commercial Credit Dev. Corp. v. Bailey, 80 A.D.2d 748; Federal Deposit Ins. Co. v. Lapadula, 137 Misc.2d 559). Accordingly, the Supreme Court's direction that the sale proceed was in all respects proper.
We have considered the appellant's procedural argument and find it to be devoid of merit. Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.