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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 3, 2003·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

306 A.D.2d 20 (Ranninger v. Pevsner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related