Sarrica v. Sarrica

41 A.D.2d 613, 340 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5146
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 13, 1973
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 613 (Sarrica v. Sarrica) 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
Sarrica v. Sarrica, 41 A.D.2d 613, 340 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 4, 1972, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the first cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, the motion granted and the first cause of action dismissed. The stay granted by order of this court entered on October 2, 1972 is vacated. Plaintiff seeks to impress a trust upon a condominium apartment located in Florida, a declaration that he is the sole owner thereof, and a direction to defendant to execute a deed in plaintiff’s favor. An action to partition the property, commenced by the defendant after the institution of this action is presently pending in Florida. Both parties have appeared therein. Having acquired in personam jurisdiction over the parties, our courts may determine their rights to foreign realty. (Smyrna■ Theatre Co. v. Missir, 198 App. Div. 181.) However, we may decline to entertain jurisdiction where the action seeks to adjudicate title to real property outside the State. (Broaddus v. Vanadium Corp. of Amer., 19 A D 2d 886; Johnson v. Dunbar, 282 App. Div. 720, affd. 306 N. Y. 697.) Since the condominium, subject matter of the litigation, is the creature of a Florida statute, and furthermore, since there is an action involving title to the property presently pending in Florida between the same parties, we should decline jurisdiction. Concur — Markewich, J. P., ■Nunez, Lane, Tilzer and Macken, JJ.

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

Related

Illinois Land Invs. III LLC v. Chicago WB Invs., LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 31165(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Riechers v. Riechers
267 A.D.2d 445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Weiss v. Weiss
186 A.D.2d 247 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
MDO Development Corp. v. Kelly
735 F. Supp. 591 (S.D. New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 A.D.2d 613, 340 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarrica-v-sarrica-nyappdiv-1973.