Jungreis v. Wickham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jungreis v. Wickham

40 A.D.2d 1016, 339 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3008

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 1016 (Jungreis v. Wickham) 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

Jungreis v. Wickham, 40 A.D.2d 1016, 339 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a vendee for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Ulster County, dated October 6, 1972' and entered in Orange County on October 18, 1972, which. granted defendants’ motion to cancel a notice of pendency filed January 4, 1972. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. The defendant owners of the subject real property are husband and wife. Service of the summons and complaint on the defendant wife alone was sufficient to prevent cancellation of the notice of pendency (Baer v. Schwartz, 14 A D 2d 539; 13 Carmody-Wait, 2d, N. Y. Practice, § 87:44). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a vendee for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Ulster County, dated October 6, 1972' and entered in Orange County on October 18, 1972, which. granted defendants’ motion to cancel a notice of pendency filed January 4, 1972. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. The defendant owners of the subject real property are husband and wife. Service of the summons and complaint on the defendant wife alone was sufficient to prevent cancellation of the notice of pendency (Baer v. Schwartz, 14 A D 2d 539; 13 Carmody-Wait, 2d, N. Y. Practice, § 87:44). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 1016, 339 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jungreis-v-wickham-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack