Legal Opinion

Fisher v. Ingula Builders Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 1967Published

1Opinion of the Court

John P. Cohalan, Jr., J.

Motion by defendant to cancel a notice of pendency of action is granted. Plaintiff is the owner of the subject property. Defendant is the holder of a purchase-money mortgage on the property. Plaintiff has instituted an action for a judgment rescinding a contract of sale and for a cancellation of the bond and second mortgage executed by plaintiff to defendant. It appears from the papers before the court that plaintiff is not entitled to file a notice of pendency of action herein. See Starkie v. Nib Constr. Corp. (235 App. Div. 699 [2d Dept.]): “ Order reversed on the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McManus v. WeinsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
  2. Ackerman v. TrueAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
  3. Starkie v. Nib Construction Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API