G. Roma Roofing Co. v. Marcotrigiano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

G. Roma Roofing Co. v. Marcotrigiano

156 A.D.2d 638, 549 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16462

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 638 (G. Roma Roofing Co. v. Marcotrigiano) 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

G. Roma Roofing Co. v. Marcotrigiano, 156 A.D.2d 638, 549 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to extend a real property lien pursuant to CPLR 5203 (b), the defendant Westnau Land Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hand, J.), entered August 12, 1988, which granted the plaintiff’s application to extend the lien.

[639]*639Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In June 1978 the plaintiff-judgment-creditor G. Roma Roofing Co., Inc., docketed a judgment in the amount of $4,240.30 with the Suffolk County Clerk, thereby creating a lien attaching to certain real property which the defendant-judgment-debtor Dominick Marcotrigiano owned with his wife as tenants by the entirety (see, CPLR 5203). In December 1978, the defendant Westnau Land Corp. (hereinafter Westnau) purchased the foregoing real property from the Marcotrigianos, although apparently the deed was not recorded until April 1987. Thereafter, by order to show cause dated May 20, 1988, the plaintiff brought on an application pursuant to CPLR 5203 (b) to extend the lien. Although the order to show cause provided for service upon the defendants Marcotrigiano and Westnau, there was no provision for service upon the two corporate judgment debtors whose names appeared on the judgment docketed by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s application for an extension of the lien. On appeal, the defendant contends that the plaintiff’s failure to serve the corporate debtors renders its application and the court’s subsequent order granting it jurisdictionally defective. We disagree.

Contrary to the defendant Westnau’s contentions, the plaintiff afforded the defendants notice of its application in conformity with the provisions of CPLR 5203 (b). The remedial purpose of CPLR 5203 (b) is to protect purchasers, creditors and mortgagees who would not otherwise have notice of a pending levy or Sheriff’s sale (see, e.g., Kazmeroff v Ehlinger, 43 Misc 2d 942, 944). The defendant Westnau does not fall within the foregoing category. Moreover, since notice of the plaintiff’s application was provided to both the judgment debtor who formerly owned the property and to the present owner Westnau, the notice requirements of the statute have been satisfied.

We have reviewed the defendant Westnau’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Hooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to extend a real property lien pursuant to CPLR 5203 (b), the defendant Westnau Land Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hand, J.), entered August 12, 1988, which granted the plaintiff’s application to extend the lien.

[639]*639Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In June 1978 the plaintiff-judgment-creditor G. Roma Roofing Co., Inc., docketed a judgment in the amount of $4,240.30 with the Suffolk County Clerk, thereby creating a lien attaching to certain real property which the defendant-judgment-debtor Dominick Marcotrigiano owned with his wife as tenants by the entirety (see, CPLR 5203). In December 1978, the defendant Westnau Land Corp. (hereinafter Westnau) purchased the foregoing real property from the Marcotrigianos, although apparently the deed was not recorded until April 1987. Thereafter, by order to show cause dated May 20, 1988, the plaintiff brought on an application pursuant to CPLR 5203 (b) to extend the lien. Although the order to show cause provided for service upon the defendants Marcotrigiano and Westnau, there was no provision for service upon the two corporate judgment debtors whose names appeared on the judgment docketed by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s application for an extension of the lien. On appeal, the defendant contends that the plaintiff’s failure to serve the corporate debtors renders its application and the court’s subsequent order granting it jurisdictionally defective. We disagree.

Contrary to the defendant Westnau’s contentions, the plaintiff afforded the defendants notice of its application in conformity with the provisions of CPLR 5203 (b). The remedial purpose of CPLR 5203 (b) is to protect purchasers, creditors and mortgagees who would not otherwise have notice of a pending levy or Sheriff’s sale (see, e.g., Kazmeroff v Ehlinger, 43 Misc 2d 942, 944). The defendant Westnau does not fall within the foregoing category. Moreover, since notice of the plaintiff’s application was provided to both the judgment debtor who formerly owned the property and to the present owner Westnau, the notice requirements of the statute have been satisfied.

We have reviewed the defendant Westnau’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Hooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 638, 549 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-roma-roofing-co-v-marcotrigiano-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack