Distinctive Custom Homes Building Corp. v. Esteves

12 A.D.3d 559, 785 N.Y.S.2d 476, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14246
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 22, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 559 (Distinctive Custom Homes Building Corp. v. Esteves) 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
Distinctive Custom Homes Building Corp. v. Esteves, 12 A.D.3d 559, 785 N.Y.S.2d 476, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14246 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated November 21, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to vacate two notices of pendency.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

CPLR 6501 provides that “[a] notice of pendency may be filed in any action in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of real property.” In the instant case, nine of the complaint’s eleven causes of action sought to recover damages based on an alleged breach of a contract, and one sought an accounting to determine the amount of money damages. Accordingly, none of these causes of action sought a judgment which would “affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of real property,” and thus were inadequate to support the filing of a notice of pendency (CPLR 6501; see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313 [1984]; Borrero v East Harlem Council for Human [560]*560Servs., 165 AD2d 807 [1990]; Interior Design Force v Dorfman, 151 AD2d 461 [1989]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Related

DeCaro v. East of East, LLC
95 A.D.3d 1163 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Stangel v. Zhi Dan Chen
74 A.D.3d 1050 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Maiorino v. Galindo
65 A.D.3d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Neng Duan Lin v. 111-38 Management Corp.
25 Misc. 3d 456 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)
Homespring, LLC v. Hyung Young Lee
55 A.D.3d 541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Shkolnik v. Krutoy
32 A.D.3d 536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Ali v. Ahmad
24 A.D.3d 475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 A.D.3d 559, 785 N.Y.S.2d 476, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/distinctive-custom-homes-building-corp-v-esteves-nyappdiv-2004.