City of New York v. L.J.W.P. Realty Co. L. L. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. L.J.W.P. Realty Co. L. L. C.

250 A.D.2d 450, 673 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6163

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

DecidedMay 19, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 450 (City of New York v. L.J.W.P. Realty Co. L. L. C.) 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

City of New York v. L.J.W.P. Realty Co. L. L. C., 250 A.D.2d 450, 673 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered October 10, 1997, which, inter alia, directed defendants to sell the subject premises, and in the event that defendants failed to proffer an appropriate purchaser by a certain date, that the real property be sold at public auction, with a reserve price of $4.2 million, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the order vacated, and the matter remanded to the Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

It was error for the IAS Court to include Lot 5 located at 133 Third Avenue within the order directing a sale. The Stipulation of Settlement and the Order dated October 19, 1990 referred only to the residential buildings known as the Sahara Hotel located at 125 to 131 Third Avenue, which does not include Lot 5.

Moreover, the motion court did not have authority to direct [451]*451an auction sale of the property. Outside the power specifically conferred by statute, courts have no general authority to direct the sale of real property (Long v Long, 142 NY 545, 552; Farrell v Zibro, 268 App Div 39). At bar, the Stipulation provided that the defendants admit the property to be a nuisance under former Administrative Code of the City of New York § C16-2.0 et seq., recodified as the Nuisance Abatement Law, Administrative Code § 7-701 et seq. Therefore, the proper remedy to enforce the Stipulation requiring a sale is the appointment of a temporary receiver (Administrative Code § 7-713), to be given such powers necessary to effectuate the intent of the Stipulation. We remand the matter for this purpose. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Nardelli, Wallach, Williams and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered October 10, 1997, which, inter alia, directed defendants to sell the subject premises, and in the event that defendants failed to proffer an appropriate purchaser by a certain date, that the real property be sold at public auction, with a reserve price of $4.2 million, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the order vacated, and the matter remanded to the Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

It was error for the IAS Court to include Lot 5 located at 133 Third Avenue within the order directing a sale. The Stipulation of Settlement and the Order dated October 19, 1990 referred only to the residential buildings known as the Sahara Hotel located at 125 to 131 Third Avenue, which does not include Lot 5.

Moreover, the motion court did not have authority to direct [451]*451an auction sale of the property. Outside the power specifically conferred by statute, courts have no general authority to direct the sale of real property (Long v Long, 142 NY 545, 552; Farrell v Zibro, 268 App Div 39). At bar, the Stipulation provided that the defendants admit the property to be a nuisance under former Administrative Code of the City of New York § C16-2.0 et seq., recodified as the Nuisance Abatement Law, Administrative Code § 7-701 et seq. Therefore, the proper remedy to enforce the Stipulation requiring a sale is the appointment of a temporary receiver (Administrative Code § 7-713), to be given such powers necessary to effectuate the intent of the Stipulation. We remand the matter for this purpose. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Nardelli, Wallach, Williams and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 450, 673 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-ljwp-realty-co-l-l-c-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack