Summary
In Romanoff v. Romanoff, 125 A.D.3d 415 (1st Dept. 2015), the Appellate Division held that the "no second chance" rule in CPLR 6516(c) was applied aptly "in light of [plaintiff's] attempts to place a cloud on title of the property so as to leverage a buyout of his purported interest... which he has sought to accomplish through this action and another between essentially the same parties, under the same theories, and seeking identical relief from the same defendant."
Summary of this case from Hoffman v. RattnerOpinion
14105.
02-03-2015
Nicholas ROMANOFF, etc., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Gerald ROMANOFF, et al., Defendants, 55 Gans Judgment LLC, etc., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Law Office of James M. Haddad, New York (James M. Haddad of counsel), for appellant. Loeb & Loeb LLP, New York (Wook Hwang of counsel), for respondents.
Law Office of James M. Haddad, New York (James M. Haddad of counsel), for appellant.
Loeb & Loeb LLP, New York (Wook Hwang of counsel), for respondents.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered April 25, 2014, which granted defendant Griffon Gansevoort Holdings LLC's motion to cancel the notice of pendency, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The notice of pendency filed in this action was correctly cancelled as a prohibited successive notice affecting the same property (CPLR 6516[c] ). “[A]n expired or cancelled notice of pendency may not be refiled on the same cause of action or claim” (Guttman v. Gutman, 78 A.D.3d 779, 781, 910 N.Y.S.2d 543 [2d Dept.2010] [citation omitted] [distinguishing Deutsch v. Grunwald, 63 A.D.3d 872, 882 N.Y.S.2d 167 [2d Dept.2009] ; see also Bonded Concrete Inc. v. Johnson, 280 A.D.2d 758, 759, 720 N.Y.S.2d 227 [3d Dept.2001] ). This case presents a more than apt occasion for the application of this “no second chance” rule, in light of Robert Romanoff's attempts to place a cloud on title of the property so as to leverage a buyout of his purported interest as beneficiary of the trust, which he has sought to accomplish through this action and another between essentially the same parties, under the same theories, and seeking identical relief from the same defendant.
We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them unavailing.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ., concur.