In re the Estate of Vetri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Vetri

208 A.D.2d 755, 617 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9883

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 755 (In re the Estate of Vetri) 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

In re the Estate of Vetri, 208 A.D.2d 755, 617 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding commenced by the administrator of the estate of Peter Vetri for permission to sell a certain parcel of real property, Peter T. Vetri, as executor of the estate of Angela Vetri, the wife of Peter Vetri, appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), dated February 2, 1993, which granted the administrator’s petition seeking permission to sell the real property and canceled the notice of pendency filed against the real property by Angela Vetri in a related action.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

The real property in question was sold after the Surrogate’s Court canceled the notice of pendency. Thus, the propriety of the order appealed from is academic. We note that the appellant could have obtained a stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 to prevent the property from being sold. Having failed to obtain such a stay, he is not now entitled to the reinstatement of the notice of pendency (see, Da Silva v Musso, 76 NY2d 436; McLaughlin, 1990 Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C6514.1, 1995 Pocket Part, at 144). Accordingly, in the event that the appellant prevails in the related action, he would be limited to monetary damages, and may not recover the real property. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding commenced by the administrator of the estate of Peter Vetri for permission to sell a certain parcel of real property, Peter T. Vetri, as executor of the estate of Angela Vetri, the wife of Peter Vetri, appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), dated February 2, 1993, which granted the administrator’s petition seeking permission to sell the real property and canceled the notice of pendency filed against the real property by Angela Vetri in a related action.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

The real property in question was sold after the Surrogate’s Court canceled the notice of pendency. Thus, the propriety of the order appealed from is academic. We note that the appellant could have obtained a stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 to prevent the property from being sold. Having failed to obtain such a stay, he is not now entitled to the reinstatement of the notice of pendency (see, Da Silva v Musso, 76 NY2d 436; McLaughlin, 1990 Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C6514.1, 1995 Pocket Part, at 144). Accordingly, in the event that the appellant prevails in the related action, he would be limited to monetary damages, and may not recover the real property. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 755, 617 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-vetri-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack