Legal Opinion

Novitsky v. Ruda

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 16, 1930PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDunne, J.

There is no point to the argument of the opposing attorney that the court has no power to cancel a notice of pendency *347before the expiration of the sixty-day period for making service of the summons. Here the motion to cancel the Us pendens is made not with reference to time, but with reference to the basic question as to whether or not the Us pendens was properly filed in so far as it pertains to the subject-matter as contemplated by section 120 of the Civil Practice Act. It was never intended that the court would be precluded from affording relief by way of cancellation until the sixty-day…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Keating v. HammersteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
  2. Baycourt Estates Co. v. DickersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  3. Thomas v. RobbertNew York Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Polk v. SchwartzNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1979
  2. Schlaifer v. Shelby-Coleridge, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API