Robert Fiance Hair Design Institute, Inc. v. Concourse Properties Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robert Fiance Hair Design Institute, Inc. v. Concourse Properties Co.

130 A.D.2d 564, 515 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46562

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 11, 1987·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring a lease in full force and effect and for the enforcement of its provisions, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Levine, J.), dated December 1, 1986, which denied their motion to cancel a notice of pendency.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The complaint, which seeks to enforce provisions of a lease, plainly demands a judgment which would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property (see, CPLR 6501). Therefore, it justifies the filing of a notice of pendency by the plaintiff (see, 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313, 320). The likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits is irrelevant to determining the validity of the notice of pendency (see, 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., supra; Interboro Operating Corp. v Commonwealth Sec. & Mtge. Corp., 269 NY 56, 59). Finally, the defendants’ constitutional challenge to CPLR 6501 is not properly before this court inasmuch as the defendants failed to raise the issue before the court of first instance (see, Melahn v Hearn, 60 NY2d 944, 945) and failed to serve the Attorney-General with notice thereof (see, Roberts v Gross, 100 AD2d 540, 541; Executive Law § 71; CPLR 1012). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring a lease in full force and effect and for the enforcement of its provisions, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Levine, J.), dated December 1, 1986, which denied their motion to cancel a notice of pendency.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The complaint, which seeks to enforce provisions of a lease, plainly demands a judgment which would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property (see, CPLR 6501). Therefore, it justifies the filing of a notice of pendency by the plaintiff (see, 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313, 320). The likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits is irrelevant to determining the validity of the notice of pendency (see, 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., supra; Interboro Operating Corp. v Commonwealth Sec. & Mtge. Corp., 269 NY 56, 59). Finally, the defendants’ constitutional challenge to CPLR 6501 is not properly before this court inasmuch as the defendants failed to raise the issue before the court of first instance (see, Melahn v Hearn, 60 NY2d 944, 945) and failed to serve the Attorney-General with notice thereof (see, Roberts v Gross, 100 AD2d 540, 541; Executive Law § 71; CPLR 1012). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Robert Fiance Hair Design Institute, Inc. v. Concourse Properties Co., 130 A.D.2d 564, 515 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

130 A.D.2d 564 (Robert Fiance Hair Design Institute, Inc. v. Concourse Properties Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related