Don v. Singer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Don v. Singer

73 A.D.3d 583, 900 N.Y.S.2d 733

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

DecidedMay 20, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 583 (Don v. Singer) 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

Don v. Singer, 73 A.D.3d 583, 900 N.Y.S.2d 733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered April 27, 2009, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to extend the notice of pendency filed against the subject properties, and denied appellant’s cross motion to vacate and cancel the notice of pendency, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of the remedial goal of CPLR article 65 (see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313 [1984]) and the viability of the claims for a constructive trust (see Klein v Gutman, 12 AD3d 348 [2004]), the notice of pendency was properly extended. Since the complaint sought the placement of the subject properties in a constructive trust in order to protect plaintiffs’ alleged ownership interest therein, this action affects the “title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of real property” (see Peterson v Kelly, 173 AD2d 688, 689 [1991]; compare Yonaty v Glauber, 40 AD3d 1193, 1195 [2007]).

We have considered appellant’s remaining claims, including those related to the court’s prior order of May 30, 2007, and find them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered April 27, 2009, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to extend the notice of pendency filed against the subject properties, and denied appellant’s cross motion to vacate and cancel the notice of pendency, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of the remedial goal of CPLR article 65 (see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313 [1984]) and the viability of the claims for a constructive trust (see Klein v Gutman, 12 AD3d 348 [2004]), the notice of pendency was properly extended. Since the complaint sought the placement of the subject properties in a constructive trust in order to protect plaintiffs’ alleged ownership interest therein, this action affects the “title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of real property” (see Peterson v Kelly, 173 AD2d 688, 689 [1991]; compare Yonaty v Glauber, 40 AD3d 1193, 1195 [2007]).

We have considered appellant’s remaining claims, including those related to the court’s prior order of May 30, 2007, and find them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 583, 900 N.Y.S.2d 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/don-v-singer-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack