Siegel v. Silverstone

250 A.D. 784, 294 N.Y.S. 385, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8999
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 25, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 250 A.D. 784 (Siegel v. Silverstone) 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
Siegel v. Silverstone, 250 A.D. 784, 294 N.Y.S. 385, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Opinion

Order cancelling notice of pendency of action reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The purpose [785]*785for which the action is brought must be determined from the complaint. (Wolinsky v. Okun, 111 App. Div. 536; Mills v. Bliss, 55 N. Y. 139.) The primary purpose of the complaint herein is to impress a trust in favor of the plaintiff upon a leasehold and is one of the causes of action authorizing the filing of a notice of pendency of action by section 120 of the Civil Practice Act. (Keating v. Hammerstein, 196 App. Div. 18; Weingarten v. Minskoff, 204 id. 750.) The additional relief sought by the plaintiff is incidental to the primary purpose of the complaint. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Morice v. Garritano
62 A.D.3d 971 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Estate of Sabatino
90 Misc. 2d 56 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1977)
Creno v. Masterpol
48 Misc. 2d 48 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Elna Construction Co. v. Flynn
39 Misc. 2d 254 (New York Supreme Court, 1963)
Roedel v. Roedel
2 Misc. 2d 558 (New York Supreme Court, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
250 A.D. 784, 294 N.Y.S. 385, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-silverstone-nyappdiv-1937.