Thaler v. Hunt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thaler v. Hunt

104 A.D.3d 954, 960 N.Y.S.2d 916

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.3d 954 (Thaler v. Hunt) 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

Thaler v. Hunt, 104 A.D.3d 954, 960 N.Y.S.2d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5206 (e) to compel the sale of a homestead to satisfy a money judgment, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered November 3, 2011, as denied his motion for summary judgment on the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the petition is granted.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the petitioner established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that he has a valid judgment against the respondent Harry E. Hunt, and that Hunt is, by deed recorded on June 22, 2001, a joint owner of the homestead sought to be sold. In opposition, the respondents failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]).

[955]*955Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the petition should have been granted. Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5206 (e) to compel the sale of a homestead to satisfy a money judgment, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered November 3, 2011, as denied his motion for summary judgment on the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the petition is granted.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the petitioner established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that he has a valid judgment against the respondent Harry E. Hunt, and that Hunt is, by deed recorded on June 22, 2001, a joint owner of the homestead sought to be sold. In opposition, the respondents failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]).

[955]*955Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the petition should have been granted. Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.3d 954, 960 N.Y.S.2d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thaler-v-hunt-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack