Equity Search, Inc. v. Kao

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Equity Search, Inc. v. Kao

37 A.D.3d 1105, 827 N.Y.S.2d 908

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 1105 (Equity Search, Inc. v. Kao) 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

Equity Search, Inc. v. Kao, 37 A.D.3d 1105, 827 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Livingston County (Gerard J. Alonzo, Jr., A.J.), entered November 4, 2005 in an action pursuant to RPAPL article 9. The order granted in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, although partition actions are governed by RPAPL article 9, such actions also are “equitable in nature” (Worthing v Cossar, 93 AD2d 515, 517 [1983]; [1106]*1106see McVicker v Sarma, 163 AD2d 721, 722 [1990]). “It is axiomatic that in an action for partition the court may adjust the equities of the parties in determining the distribution of the sale proceeds” (McVieker, 163 AD2d at 722), and we conclude that the court properly did so here. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Livingston County (Gerard J. Alonzo, Jr., A.J.), entered November 4, 2005 in an action pursuant to RPAPL article 9. The order granted in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, although partition actions are governed by RPAPL article 9, such actions also are “equitable in nature” (Worthing v Cossar, 93 AD2d 515, 517 [1983]; [1106]*1106see McVicker v Sarma, 163 AD2d 721, 722 [1990]). “It is axiomatic that in an action for partition the court may adjust the equities of the parties in determining the distribution of the sale proceeds” (McVieker, 163 AD2d at 722), and we conclude that the court properly did so here. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 1105, 827 N.Y.S.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/equity-search-inc-v-kao-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack