From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vogel v. Meixner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 3, 1986
119 A.D.2d 877 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

April 3, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Hamilton County (Brown, J.).


On August 24, 1984, plaintiff filed a notice of pendency and a verified summons and complaint in the Hamilton County Clerk's office. Named as defendants were realtor Val Meixner, his employer, United Farm Agency, Inc., and Peter K. Leisure, as executor of the estate of Lucille P. Leisure (the estate). At the time of filing the notice of pendency, the estate owned the property encumbered by the notice, but sold it to Richard Corvetti and C-Jeff Realty, Inc., three days later. The following day, August 28, 1984, plaintiff served a summons and complaint on Meixner; admittedly, neither Peter K. Leisure nor George S. Leisure, Jr., a coexecutor of the estate, was served, and it is unquestioned that they were available for service. Failure to serve an owner of the property in question underlies Special Term's decision to grant the motion by the current owners to cancel the notice of pendency.

Plaintiff's thesis that service upon Meixner sufficed to validate the notice of pendency is an unacceptable one, for Meixner had no ownership interest in the property (see, Schwartz v. Certified Mgt. Corp., 78 A.D.2d 823) and no authority to accept process on behalf of the estate of the Leisures.

Order affirmed, with costs. Main, J.P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur. [ 127 Misc.2d 1011.]


Summaries of

Vogel v. Meixner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 3, 1986
119 A.D.2d 877 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Vogel v. Meixner

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH P. VOGEL, Appellant, v. VAL MEIXNER et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Apr 3, 1986

Citations

119 A.D.2d 877 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Weiner v. MKVII-Westchester, LLC

The addition to this action of two defendants who were not named in the first action is a change of form,…

Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn

We conclude that the Supreme Court lacked an adequate basis for making those determinations and therefore…