Siegel v. Silverstone

250 A.D. 784, 294 N.Y.S. 385, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8999
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 1937·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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] for 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

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

250 A.D. 784 (Siegel v. Silverstone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)