Ronald Henry Land Trust v. Sasmor

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ronald Henry Land Trust v. Sasmor

44 Misc. 3d 51, 990 N.Y.S.2d 767

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 13, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 44 Misc. 3d 51 (Ronald Henry Land Trust v. Sasmor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ronald Henry Land Trust v. Sasmor, 44 Misc. 3d 51, 990 N.Y.S.2d 767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the final judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a final judgment dismissing the petition.

This holdover summary proceeding was brought in the name of an express trust (see EPTL 7-2.1 [a]). Despite repeated objections by appellant Jon Sasmor (tenant) in the answer, in opposition to petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, and by trial motion, that petitioner lacked the capacity to maintain this proceeding, as the statute vests the legal estate of an express trust in the trustees, no motion was ever made to join the trustees or to amend the caption to reflect that the trustees were the proper parties petitioner. In fact, the trustees did everything in their power to avoid disclosing their identities and appearing in this proceeding, including moving to quash the subpoenas that tenant had served upon them. In these circumstances, tenant’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of capacity should have been granted (see EPTL 7-2.1 [a]; CPLR 1004; Matter of Straut, 126 NY 201 [1891]; Matter of Beiny, 23 Misc 3d 1112[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50716[U] [Sur Ct, Bronx County 2009]; Limouze v M. M. & B Mar. Advancement, Training, Educ. & Safety Program, 397 F Supp 784, 787-790 [D Md 1975]; but cf. Bedford Apts. Co. v Coutts, NYLJ, Nov. 30, 2000 at 29, col 6 [App Term, 1st Dept]).

We note that, while tenant Lisa Lin has not appealed, she is, in the circumstances presented, united in interest with the appealing tenant, and, thus, the final judgment must be reversed as to both tenants (see e.g. Priegue v Paulus, 43 Misc 3d 135[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50662[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014]).

Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a final judgment dismissing the petition.

Pesce, P.J., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the final judgment is reversed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a final judgment dismissing the petition.

This holdover summary proceeding was brought in the name of an express trust (see EPTL 7-2.1 [a]). Despite repeated objections by appellant Jon Sasmor (tenant) in the answer, in opposition to petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, and by trial motion, that petitioner lacked the capacity to maintain this proceeding, as the statute vests the legal estate of an express trust in the trustees, no motion was ever made to join the trustees or to amend the caption to reflect that the trustees were the proper parties petitioner. In fact, the trustees did everything in their power to avoid disclosing their identities and appearing in this proceeding, including moving to quash the subpoenas that tenant had served upon them. In these circumstances, tenant’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of capacity should have been granted (see EPTL 7-2.1 [a]; CPLR 1004; Matter of Straut, 126 NY 201 [1891]; Matter of Beiny, 23 Misc 3d 1112[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50716[U] [Sur Ct, Bronx County 2009]; Limouze v M. M. & B Mar. Advancement, Training, Educ. & Safety Program, 397 F Supp 784, 787-790 [D Md 1975]; but cf. Bedford Apts. Co. v Coutts, NYLJ, Nov. 30, 2000 at 29, col 6 [App Term, 1st Dept]).

We note that, while tenant Lisa Lin has not appealed, she is, in the circumstances presented, united in interest with the appealing tenant, and, thus, the final judgment must be reversed as to both tenants (see e.g. Priegue v Paulus, 43 Misc 3d 135[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50662[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014]).

Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a final judgment dismissing the petition.

Pesce, P.J., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 Misc. 3d 51, 990 N.Y.S.2d 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-henry-land-trust-v-sasmor-nyappterm-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack