Braunston v. Anchorage Woods, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
1Dissent
Burke, J. (dissenting).
We dissent and vote to affirm. Both Special Term and the Appellate Division have found that the Us pendens had been properly filed, since a judgment rendered against the appellants might affect the use and enjoyment of the land.
We agree with the courts below. Section 120 of the Civil Practice Act, which provides that a plaintiff is entitled to file a Us pendens “ In an action brought to recover a judgment affect*307ing the title to, or the possession, use, or enjoyment of real property ”, authorized the filing of a Us pendens in this action, wherein a judgment against…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Davis v. . Niagara Falls Tower Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Leerburger v. Hennessey Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Bienstock v. Nista Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
- Leerburger v. . Hennessey Realty CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Penataquit Ass'n v. FurmanNew York Supreme Court · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.