From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Knopf v. S

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 15, 2013
110 A.D.3d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-10-15

Michael I. KNOPF, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Michael Hayden SANFORD, et al., Defendants–Respondents. Michael I. Knopf, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Michael Hayden Sanford, Defendant–Respondent.

Berry Law PLLC, New York (Eric W. Berry of counsel), for appellants. *894Michael Hayden Sanford, respondent pro se.


Berry Law PLLC, New York (Eric W. Berry of counsel), for appellants. *894Michael Hayden Sanford, respondent pro se.
Corbally, Gartland and Rappleyea, LLP, Poughkeepsie (Jon H. Adams of counsel), for Pursuit Holdings, LLC, Sanford Partners, LP, MH Sanford & Co., LLC and Wyndclyffe, LLC, respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered September 11, 2012, which denied plaintiffs' motion to extend the notices of pendency, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the notices of pendency, filed on September 18, 2009, extended for a period of 3 years from the date of expiration of the notices.

Plaintiffs' complaint asserts a cause of action for a constructive trust, and alleges that defendant Michael Sanford promised, in exchange for certain loans, that he would purchase two properties for the benefit of the subject hedge fund and provide plaintiffs with a mortgage on those properties, but has refused to transfer the properties to the hedge fund or to plaintiffs. This cause of action, as pleaded, was sufficient to support the issuance of the subject notices of pendency, since it seeks a judgment that “would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property” (CPLR 6501; Mazzei v. Kyriacou, 98 A.D.3d 1088, 1090, 951 N.Y.S.2d 557 [2d Dept. 2012] ).

Plaintiffs established good cause for extending the notices of pendency ( seeCPLR 6513). The evidence shows that the delay in ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss resulted in a stay of discovery and significantly delayed the adjudication of the action ( see L & L Painting Co. v. Columbia Sussex Corp., 225 A.D.2d 670, 670–671, 639 N.Y.S.2d 491 [2d Dept. 1996] ).

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, FREEDMAN, GISCHE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Knopf v. S

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 15, 2013
110 A.D.3d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Knopf v. S

Case Details

Full title:Michael I. KNOPF, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Michael Hayden…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 15, 2013

Citations

110 A.D.3d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6646
972 N.Y.S.2d 893

Citing Cases

Steward Title Ins. Co. v. Jacobowitz

CPLR § 6513, permits a three year extension of the Notice of Pendency as long as the application is made…

Knop v. Sanford

In October 2013, the First Department extended the notices until September 17, 2015. (SeeKnopf v. Sanford ,…