Ryan v. La Rosa

New York Supreme Court

Ryan v. La Rosa

22 Misc. 2d 125, 202 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3240

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedApril 6, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 Misc. 2d 125 (Ryan v. La Rosa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Misc. 2d 125, 202 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-la-rosa-nysupct-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack