Sampson v. Delaney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sampson v. Delaney

34 A.D.3d 349, 824 N.Y.S.2d 277

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 21, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 349 (Sampson v. Delaney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sampson v. Delaney, 34 A.D.3d 349, 824 N.Y.S.2d 277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered April 12, 2005, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint seeks a partition and sale of property that plaintiff jointly owns with defendant-respondent, with any equities arising out of unequal contributions or receipts to be determined at an accounting and paid out of the proceeds of the sale, and the balance of the proceeds to be divided equally between the parties. Such relief is premature. The parties’ respective rights and interests in the property, and the adjustment of any equities, must be determined before, not after, a sale (see Ranninger v Pevsner, 306 AD2d 20 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered April 12, 2005, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint seeks a partition and sale of property that plaintiff jointly owns with defendant-respondent, with any equities arising out of unequal contributions or receipts to be determined at an accounting and paid out of the proceeds of the sale, and the balance of the proceeds to be divided equally between the parties. Such relief is premature. The parties’ respective rights and interests in the property, and the adjustment of any equities, must be determined before, not after, a sale (see Ranninger v Pevsner, 306 AD2d 20 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 349, 824 N.Y.S.2d 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sampson-v-delaney-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack