Hus v. Bosworth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hus v. Bosworth

194 A.D.2d 386, 598 N.Y.S.2d 521

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

DecidedJune 10, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 386 (Hus v. Bosworth) 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

Hus v. Bosworth, 194 A.D.2d 386, 598 N.Y.S.2d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about November 9, 1992, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and directed partition of the property, unanimously affirmed, with costs against defendant-appellant.

As the parties, who took title to these premises as husband and wife, were never legally married, they hold the premises as joint tenants (EPTL 6-2.2 [c]). It is not disputed that plaintiff contributed equally to the purchase of the premises, and there is no reason to question the determination of the IAS Court that the parties intended to have identical interests in the premises. Clearly, plaintiff’s delay in bringing this action did not amount to laches, and any issue as to defen[387]*387dant’s entitlement to reimbursement for expenses incurred in maintaining the premises is a matter, as the IAS Court observed, to be determined at an accounting (see, Russo Realty Corp. v Wilbert, 98 AD2d 745). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about November 9, 1992, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and directed partition of the property, unanimously affirmed, with costs against defendant-appellant.

As the parties, who took title to these premises as husband and wife, were never legally married, they hold the premises as joint tenants (EPTL 6-2.2 [c]). It is not disputed that plaintiff contributed equally to the purchase of the premises, and there is no reason to question the determination of the IAS Court that the parties intended to have identical interests in the premises. Clearly, plaintiff’s delay in bringing this action did not amount to laches, and any issue as to defen[387]*387dant’s entitlement to reimbursement for expenses incurred in maintaining the premises is a matter, as the IAS Court observed, to be determined at an accounting (see, Russo Realty Corp. v Wilbert, 98 AD2d 745). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 386, 598 N.Y.S.2d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hus-v-bosworth-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack