MurrayRayeDebbie, LLC v. Rosenphil LLC

2019 NY Slip Op 4108
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 28, 2019
Docket156640/17 9442 9441
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 4108 (MurrayRayeDebbie, LLC v. Rosenphil LLC) 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
MurrayRayeDebbie, LLC v. Rosenphil LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 4108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

MurrayRayeDebbie, LLC v Rosenphil LLC (2019 NY Slip Op 04108)
MurrayRayeDebbie, LLC v Rosenphil LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 04108
Decided on May 28, 2019
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on May 28, 2019
Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Kapnick, Oing, JJ.

156640/17 9442 9441

[*1]MurrayRayeDebbie, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v

Rosenphil LLC, Defendant-Appellant.


Spolzino Smith Buss & Jacobs LLP, Yonkers (Jeffrey D. Buss of counsel), for appellant.

Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale (Henry M. Mascia of counsel), for respondents.



Judgment and order (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered September 19, 2018, directing the partition and sale of the subject building, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered July 10, 2018, which granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs established their prima facie case under RPAPL 901(1) by establishing that 1) the parties own the building as tenants in common and 2) physical partition of the property would come at great prejudice to the owners (Ferguson v McLoughlin, 184 AD2d 294 [1st Dept 1992]). In opposition, defendant failed to raise an issue of fact or a viable affirmative defense based on an alleged deal between plaintiffs and the tenant of the building (Estate of Steingart v Hoffman, 33 AD3d 465, 466 [1st Dept 2006]).

We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 28, 2019

CLERK



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

Related

Estate of Steingart v. Hoffman
33 A.D.3d 465 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Ferguson v. McLoughlin
184 A.D.2d 294 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 4108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murrayrayedebbie-llc-v-rosenphil-llc-nyappdiv-2019.