From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weidel v. Kaba Realty, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 23, 2007
36 A.D.3d 796 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-02304.

January 23, 2007.

In an action, inter alia, to compel defendant Kaba Realty, LLC, to board up certain windows on the subject property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated February 7, 2006, which granted the defendant's motion to cancel a notice of pendency filed by the plaintiff on the subject property.

Steven Wimpfheimer, Great Neck, N.Y., for appellant.

Palmeri Gaven, New York, N.Y. (John J. Palmeri of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Krausman, J.P., Florio, Lunn and Covello, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiffs action was not one seeking to affect "the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property" (CPLR 6501). Accordingly, it properly granted the defendant's motion to cancel the notice of pendency filed by the plaintiff against the subject property ( see 5303 Realty Corp. v O Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313, 323 [1984]; Braunston v Anchorage Woods, 10 NY2d 302, 305-306; Raimonda v Cahn, 26 AD2d 939; see also Shkolnik v Krutoy, 32 AD3d 536; Tsiporin v Ziegel, 203 AD2d 451).

In light of this determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.


Summaries of

Weidel v. Kaba Realty, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 23, 2007
36 A.D.3d 796 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Weidel v. Kaba Realty, LLC

Case Details

Full title:DONALD WEIDEL, Appellant, v. KABA REALTY, LLC, Respondent, et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 23, 2007

Citations

36 A.D.3d 796 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 518
826 N.Y.S.2d 912

Citing Cases

Dupree v. Scottsdale Insur. Co.

In sum, the insurer bears the burden of proving that the allegations in the underlying claim “cast the…

QIC v. STEINBRONN

Judge Burgess ruled that Steinbronn could proceed with this claims for conversion and invasion of privacy. It…