Summary
In Ackerman v. True (44 App. Div. 106), which was an action brought for an injunction and to recover damages claimed to be caused by the defendant's encroachment upon the street adjoining the plaintiff's property, we held that the defendant's land was in nowise affected by the suit and that the motion to cancel the notice of pendency of action should have been granted.
Summary of this case from McManus v. WeinsteinOpinion
November Term, 1899.
Alfred B. Cruikshank, for the appellant.
William J. Kelly, for the respondent.
This action was brought for an injunction and to recover damages claimed to be caused by the defendant encroaching upon the street, which encroachment interfered with light, air and access to certain premises belonging to the plaintiff. In that action a lis pendens has been filed against the defendant's land adjoining the street where these obstructions exist. The land described in the notice of lis pendens is in no manner affected by the suit and it is perfectly clear that it is an abuse of the process of the court to allow such a lis pendens to remain upon its files.
The motion to cancel the same should have been granted and the order appealed from must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
PATTERSON, O'BRIEN, INGRAHAM and McLAUGHLIN, JJ., concurred.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.