Legal Opinion

Siegel v. Silverstone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 25, 1937PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order cancelling notice of pendency of action reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The purpose *785for which the action is brought must be determined from the complaint. (Wolinsky v. Okun, 111 App. Div. 536; Mills v. Bliss, 55 N. Y. 139.) The primary purpose of the complaint herein is to impress a trust in favor of the plaintiff upon a leasehold and is one of the causes of action authorizing the filing of a notice of pendency of action by section 120 of the Civil Practice Act. (Keating v. Hammerstein, 196 App. Div. 18;…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mills v. . BlissNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
  2. Keating v. HammersteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
  3. Wolinsky v. OkunAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of SabatinoNew York Surrogate's Court · 1977
  2. Elna Construction Co. v. FlynnNew York Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Morice v. GarritanoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  4. Roedel v. RoedelNew York Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Creno v. MasterpolNew York Supreme Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API