Opinion
June 10, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
As the parties, who took title to these premises as husband and wife, were never legally married, they hold the premises as joint tenants (EPTL 6-2.2 [c]). It is not disputed that plaintiff contributed equally to the purchase of the premises, and there is no reason to question the determination of the IAS Court that the parties intended to have identical interests in the premises. Clearly, plaintiff's delay in bringing this action did not amount to laches, and any issue as to defendant's entitlement to reimbursement for expenses incurred in maintaining the premises is a matter, as the IAS Court observed, to be determined at an accounting (see, Russo Realty Corp. v. Wilbert, 98 A.D.2d 745).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.