Aiello v. Gross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aiello v. Gross

205 A.D.2d 483, 614 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5961

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 6, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 483 (Aiello v. Gross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aiello v. Gross, 205 A.D.2d 483, 614 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated January 7, 1993, which denied their motion to cancel the notice of pendency filed against the property and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to extend that notice of pendency.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A notice of pendency was first filed against the subject parcel on September 7, 1990. The plaintiff’s order to show cause to extend the notice of pendency, dated September 11, 1992, was therefore timely (see, CPLR 6513). The fact that a prior notice of pendency had been mistakenly filed by the plaintiff against the wrong parcel in 1988 did not serve to alter the effective date of the amended notice of pendency under the statute. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated January 7, 1993, which denied their motion to cancel the notice of pendency filed against the property and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to extend that notice of pendency.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A notice of pendency was first filed against the subject parcel on September 7, 1990. The plaintiff’s order to show cause to extend the notice of pendency, dated September 11, 1992, was therefore timely (see, CPLR 6513). The fact that a prior notice of pendency had been mistakenly filed by the plaintiff against the wrong parcel in 1988 did not serve to alter the effective date of the amended notice of pendency under the statute. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 483, 614 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aiello-v-gross-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack