Tsoukas v. Tsoukas

107 A.D.3d 879, 968 N.Y.S.2d 109
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 19, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 107 A.D.3d 879 (Tsoukas v. Tsoukas) 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
Tsoukas v. Tsoukas, 107 A.D.3d 879, 968 N.Y.S.2d 109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

In an action for the partition and sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Fusco, J.), dated April 10, 2012, which denied his motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint.

[880]*880Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“A person holding and in possession of real property as joint tenant or tenant in common, in which he [or she] has an estate of inheritance, or for life, or for years, may maintain an action for the partition of the property, and for a sale if it appears that a partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners” (RPAPL 901 [1]). The right to partition is not absolute, however, and while a tenant in common has the right to maintain an action for partition pursuant to RPAPL 901, the remedy is always subject to the equities between the parties (see Pando v Tapia, 79 AD3d 993, 995 [2010]; Arata v Behling, 57 AD3d 925, 926 [2008]; James v James, 52 AD3d 474, 474 [2008]; Graffeo v Paciello, 46 AD3d 613, 614 [2007]).

Here, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting a copy of the duly-executed bargain and sale deed dated October 1, 2003, demonstrating his ownership and the right to possession of the subject property as a tenant in common with the defendant. In opposition, the defendant raised triable issues of fact as to whether the equities were in his favor (see Arata v Behling, 57 AD3d at 926). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

DR D Constr. Corp. v. Littles
2025 NY Slip Op 30197(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Gelinas LLC v. Hayes
2024 NY Slip Op 24273 (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2024)
Hector v. Johnson
S.D. New York, 2023
Topp v. Pincus
S.D. New York, 2022
Coston v. Greene
2020 NY Slip Op 07031 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Chasewood v. Kay
E.D. New York, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 A.D.3d 879, 968 N.Y.S.2d 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tsoukas-v-tsoukas-nyappdiv-2013.