Stewart v. Sternberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stewart v. Sternberg

120 A.D.2d 661, 502 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56762

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

DecidedMay 19, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.2d 661 (Stewart v. Sternberg) 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

Stewart v. Sternberg, 120 A.D.2d 661, 502 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated June 26, 1984, which denied their motion, for an order pursuant to CPLR 6514 (b) canceling the notice of pendency filed against the subject premises, or, alternatively, pursuant to CPLR 6515, canceling the same upon the posting of an undertaking.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The record contains no evidence that the action for specific performance has been commenced or prosecuted in bad faith (cf, CPLR 6514 [b]), and given a court’s limited scope of review on a motion such as this (see, 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313, 319-321), Special Term did not abuse its discretion in refusing to cancel the notice of pendency. Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated June 26, 1984, which denied their motion, for an order pursuant to CPLR 6514 (b) canceling the notice of pendency filed against the subject premises, or, alternatively, pursuant to CPLR 6515, canceling the same upon the posting of an undertaking.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The record contains no evidence that the action for specific performance has been commenced or prosecuted in bad faith (cf, CPLR 6514 [b]), and given a court’s limited scope of review on a motion such as this (see, 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313, 319-321), Special Term did not abuse its discretion in refusing to cancel the notice of pendency. Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 661, 502 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-sternberg-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack