Summary
In Harvey v. Metz (supra), the court granted summary judgment because the uncontradicted facts set forth in the moving papers showed that the plaintiff did not have the legal title but in the case at bar the requisite legal title may be established as a basis for partition (Zim v. Cohen, supra).
Summary of this case from Zarski v. SchmidtOpinion
October 7, 1946.
Appeal from County Court, Nassau County.
Order reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, the motion granted, with $10 costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Upon the uncontradicted facts set forth in the moving affidavits, plaintiff did not have the legal title to the real property in suit requisite to the maintenance of an action for partition. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1012; Tracy Development Co. v. Becker, 212 N.Y. 488; Side v. Brenneman, 7 App. Div. 273; O'Connor v. O'Connor, 249 App. Div. 515.) We pass upon no other question. Lewis, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Aldrich, JJ., concur.