From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Piccirillo v. Ravenal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 8, 1990
161 A.D.2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 8, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).


CPLR 6501 expressly authorizes the filing of a notice of pendency in those actions in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use, or enjoyment of real property. The drastic impact of a notice of pendency requires a strict application of CPLR 6501 (5303 Realty Corp. v O Y Equity Corp., 64 N.Y.2d 313). "Thus, a court is not to investigate the underlying transaction in determining whether a complaint comes within the scope of CPLR 6501. Instead, in accordance with historical practice, the court's analysis is to be limited to the pleading's face." (Supra, at 321.) A review of the complaint demonstrates that the action does not directly affect the title to real property, but instead involves a shareholder's rights in a corporation whose sole asset is the property described in the notice of pendency. Accordingly, the filing of the notice of pendency was improper and the IAS court correctly canceled it (supra).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ross, Asch and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

Piccirillo v. Ravenal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 8, 1990
161 A.D.2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Piccirillo v. Ravenal

Case Details

Full title:UGO PICCIRILLO, Appellant, v. RICHARD RAVENAL et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 8, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
554 N.Y.S.2d 901

Citing Cases

Ostad v. Nehmadi

Moreover, the validity of the notice must be determined based on a review of the original complaint, and…

Ostad v. Nehmadi

( Yonaty, 40 AD3d at 1193, 1195). Moreover, the validity of the notice must be determined based on a review…