Eisele v. Eisele

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eisele v. Eisele

37 A.D.3d 376, 830 N.Y.S.2d 149

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 376 (Eisele v. Eisele) 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

Eisele v. Eisele, 37 A.D.3d 376, 830 N.Y.S.2d 149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about January 6, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s request for cancellation of a notice of pendency filed by plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Having entered into a stipulation in which he agreed to sell the subject property and proceed to a trial regarding the distribution of the proceeds of the sale, plaintiff is no longer entitled to a lis pendens on the property since he relinquished his interest in the property and acknowledged that the sole issue for resolution is money damages. The lis pendens was thus properly vacated (see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313 [1984]).

Defendant’s request for sanctions is unwarranted. Concur— Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about January 6, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s request for cancellation of a notice of pendency filed by plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Having entered into a stipulation in which he agreed to sell the subject property and proceed to a trial regarding the distribution of the proceeds of the sale, plaintiff is no longer entitled to a lis pendens on the property since he relinquished his interest in the property and acknowledged that the sole issue for resolution is money damages. The lis pendens was thus properly vacated (see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313 [1984]).

Defendant’s request for sanctions is unwarranted. Concur— Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 376, 830 N.Y.S.2d 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisele-v-eisele-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack