Ryan v. La Rosa

22 Misc. 2d 125, 202 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3240
New York Supreme Court·Decided April 6, 1960·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion to cancel a notice of pendency of action granted.

The plaintiff is an attorney who has allegedly represented the defendants in certain real estate negotiations. In a complaint containing seven causes of action he sues for the reasonable value of Ms services. None of the actions are brought to recover a judgment affecting the title to, or the possession, use, or enjoyment of real property ” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 120). Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to file a notice of pendency of action (Kauffman v. Simis, 156 App. Div. 208). However, as the motion is for relief under section 120, and not under section 123 of the Civil Practice Act, no allowance is made for the costs and expenses to wMch reference is made in section 123.

Submit order.

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

Ryan v. La Rosa, 22 Misc. 2d 125, 202 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3240 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1960).

22 Misc. 2d 125 (Ryan v. La Rosa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Congel v. Malfitano
61 A.D.3d 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Tropeano v. Tropeano
35 A.D.3d 444 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Snitow v. State
43 Misc. 2d 596 (New York State Court of Claims, 1964)