From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Interior Design Force Incorporated v. Dorfman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1989
151 A.D.2d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

June 5, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties entered into a contract whereby the appellant agreed, in pertinent part, to design a house to be built on certain real property owned by the respondents.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant's complaint in essence seeks damages for breach of the contract. Accordingly, since the appellant's lawsuit does not "directly affect * * * title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment" of the respondents' real property (5303 Realty Corp. v. O Y Equity Corp., 64 N.Y.2d 313, 315-316), the notice of pendency was properly canceled (see, Alternate Energy Mgt. Corp. v. Fontana, 141 A.D.2d 482; Long Is. City Sav. Loan Assn. v. Gottlieb, 90 A.D.2d 766, mod on other grounds 58 N.Y.2d 931). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Interior Design Force Incorporated v. Dorfman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1989
151 A.D.2d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Interior Design Force Incorporated v. Dorfman

Case Details

Full title:INTERIOR DESIGN FORCE INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. STUART DORFMAN et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 5, 1989

Citations

151 A.D.2d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
542 N.Y.S.2d 251

Citing Cases

Shkolnik v. Krutoy

The complaint here seeks only monetary damages and an accounting to determine the amount of such damages.…

Phillip v. Zanani

A notice of pendency may not be properly filed in an action to recover a down payment under a contract for…