Opinion
December 7, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable to the defendant United Artists Communications, Inc.
Upon reviewing the allegations of the complaint (see, 5303 Realty Corp. v O Y Equity Corp., 64 N.Y.2d 313) and the peculiar circumstances of this case, we agree with the Supreme Court that the filing of the notice of pendency in this action was proper, inasmuch as the plaintiff seeks "[to directly] affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of [the subject] real property" (CPLR 6501; see, Peterson v Kelly, 173 A.D.2d 688, 689; Yorktown Floorworld v Wagon Prods., 170 A.D.2d 823; Flotteron v Steinberg, 88 A.D.2d 968). Moreover, the Supreme Court's cancellation of the notice of pendency upon the posting of an undertaking in the amount of $300,000 upon its express finding "that adequate relief can be secured to the plaintiff by the giving of such an undertaking" (CPLR 6515) did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, e.g., Peterson v Kelly, supra).
We have considered the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.