Chicago Title Insurance v. Pascale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chicago Title Insurance v. Pascale

31 A.D.3d 635, 817 N.Y.S.2d 907

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 18, 2006·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5206 (e), inter alia, to compel the sale of real property to satisfy certain money judgments, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O’Rourke, J), entered May 4, 2005, which, among other things, directed the sale of the subject property.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, Judiciary Law § 489 did not prohibit the petitioner from bringing this proceeding (see CIC Intl. v Citibank Natl. Assn., 162 AD2d 243, 244 [1990]; see Flushing Sav. Bank v R. G. R. Assoc., 76 AD2d 893, 894 [1980]; Concord Landscapers v Pincus, 41 AD2d 759 [1973]).

Furthermore, because in this special proceeding, there are no triable issues of fact raised, the Supreme Court properly made “a summary determination on the pleadings and papers submitted as if a motion for summary judgment were before it” (Matter of Fisch v Aiken, 252 AD2d 556 [1998]; see CPLR 409 [b]). Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5206 (e), inter alia, to compel the sale of real property to satisfy certain money judgments, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O’Rourke, J), entered May 4, 2005, which, among other things, directed the sale of the subject property.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, Judiciary Law § 489 did not prohibit the petitioner from bringing this proceeding (see CIC Intl. v Citibank Natl. Assn., 162 AD2d 243, 244 [1990]; see Flushing Sav. Bank v R. G. R. Assoc., 76 AD2d 893, 894 [1980]; Concord Landscapers v Pincus, 41 AD2d 759 [1973]).

Furthermore, because in this special proceeding, there are no triable issues of fact raised, the Supreme Court properly made “a summary determination on the pleadings and papers submitted as if a motion for summary judgment were before it” (Matter of Fisch v Aiken, 252 AD2d 556 [1998]; see CPLR 409 [b]). Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Chicago Title Insurance v. Pascale, 31 A.D.3d 635, 817 N.Y.S.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

31 A.D.3d 635 (Chicago Title Insurance v. Pascale) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related