From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Siegel v. Silverstone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 25, 1937
250 App. Div. 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Opinion

March 25, 1937.


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 for 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; Weingarten v. Minskoff, 204 id. 750.) The additional relief sought by the plaintiff is incidental to the primary purpose of the complaint. Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Siegel v. Silverstone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 25, 1937
250 App. Div. 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)
Case details for

Siegel v. Silverstone

Case Details

Full title:SAUL SIEGEL, Appellant, v. ISIDORE M. SILVERSTONE, SEVENTH BROOKLYN…

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

Date published: Mar 25, 1937

Citations

250 App. Div. 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Citing Cases

Roedel v. Roedel

The complaint recites that the real property in question was purchased for the partnership with partnership…

Morice v. Garritano

In his second cause of action, the plaintiff sought to impose a constructive trust in his favor upon, among…