Ranninger v. Pevsner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ranninger v. Pevsner

306 A.D.2d 20, 759 N.Y.S.2d 661, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6188

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

DecidedJune 3, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 20 (Ranninger v. Pevsner) 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

Ranninger v. Pevsner, 306 A.D.2d 20, 759 N.Y.S.2d 661, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered February 19, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment directing partition and immediate sale of the subject property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court’s denial of plaintiffs application for partition and immediate sale of the subject property was proper. Partition would be inappropriate in advance of a determination as to whether it would cause the owners “great prejudice” (see RPAPL 901; Grossman v Baker, 182 AD2d 1119 [1992]), and prior to an accounting to determine the parties’ respective interests in the property (see McVicker v Sarma, 163 AD2d 721, 722 [1990]; also see 24 NY Jur 2d, Cotenancy and Partition § 244, at 544).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered February 19, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment directing partition and immediate sale of the subject property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court’s denial of plaintiffs application for partition and immediate sale of the subject property was proper. Partition would be inappropriate in advance of a determination as to whether it would cause the owners “great prejudice” (see RPAPL 901; Grossman v Baker, 182 AD2d 1119 [1992]), and prior to an accounting to determine the parties’ respective interests in the property (see McVicker v Sarma, 163 AD2d 721, 722 [1990]; also see 24 NY Jur 2d, Cotenancy and Partition § 244, at 544).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 20, 759 N.Y.S.2d 661, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ranninger-v-pevsner-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack