From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tiger v. Tiger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 10, 2008
47 A.D.3d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

Nos. 2518, 2519.

January 10, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered October 30, 2006, which denied defendants' motion to cancel a notice of pendency and for sanctions, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion to cancel granted, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 8, 2007, which denied defendants' motion for leave to reargue the prior motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

Joseph A. Maria, P.C., White Plains (Joseph A. Maria of counsel), for appellants.

William D. Fireman, P.C., New York (William D. Fireman of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Williams, JJ.


This action was for recovery of monies after defendants failed to make payments on a note in connection with the purchase of certain businesses owned by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' notice of pendency against the property on which the businesses are physically located was improper because the judgment demanded would not affect either the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, any real property (CPLR 6501; see 5303 Realty Corp. v O Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313, 320; Downs v Yuen, 297 AD2d 251). The complaint for money damages does not even refer to the subject property in connection with the relief sought, and thus fails, on its face, to allege the direct relationship to real property required for a notice of pendency.

Defendants' request for sanctions is unwarranted.


Summaries of

Tiger v. Tiger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 10, 2008
47 A.D.3d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Tiger v. Tiger

Case Details

Full title:TIGER RIVERDALE, INC., et al., Respondents, v. TIGER DALE, INC., et al…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 10, 2008

Citations

47 A.D.3d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 169
849 N.Y.S.2d 242

Citing Cases

Delidimitropoulos v. Karantinidis

Here, on its face, the complaint does not seek relief that would affect the title to, or the possession, use…

Fong Constr. Corp. v. Gordon

"[W]here, as here, . . . the judgment[] . . . would [not] 'affect the title to, or the possession, use or…