You are here: / / Purchaser of Real Property, Who Is Aware of a Pending Lawsuit Involving...

Purchaser of Real Property, Who Is Aware of a Pending Lawsuit Involving the Property When the Purchase Is Made, Is Bound By the Outcome of the Lawsuit

The Second Department noted that a purchaser of real property who is aware of a pending lawsuit involving the property is bound by the outcome of that suit:

A purchaser of real property who has actual knowledge of a pending lawsuit with respect to the property is bound by the consequences of that lawsuit …, except in circumstances not relevant in this case … . DeMaio v Capozello, 2015 NY Slip Op 00719, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 APPLIED ONLY TO HIGH-COST OR SUBPRIME LOANS WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, THE QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED ON APPEAL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE LETTER SENT TO THE BORROWER BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY INDICATE THE DEBT WAS BEING IMMEDIATELY ACCELERATED; THEREFORE THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Property Owner Not Liable for Tracked-In Rain
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WARRANTED STRIKING THE ANSWER.
FAILURE TO GRANT AN ADJOURNMENT TO ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHO HAD BEEN ACTING IN A LIMITED ADVISORY CAPACITY, TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE FOR A SUPPRESSION HEARING DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, NEW SUPPRESSION HEARING ORDERED, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN IMPUTING TOO MUCH INCOME TO AND AWARDING TOO LITTLE MAINTENANCE TO PLAINTIFF WIFE; IN ADDITION DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED 50% OF THE VALUE OF PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS AND THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED A POSTTRIAL VALUATION OF THE BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THEREBY DEPRIVING PLAINTIFF OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT).
“EXHAUSTION OF REMEMDIES” IS NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED BEFORE AN AGENCY ACTION CAN BE CHALLENGED IN COURT; HERE THE CHALLENGE INVOLVED A PURE QUESTION OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Question of Fact Whether Infant Plaintiff’s Injuries Were the Result of... Question of Fact Whether Failure to Wear a Harness Precluded Recovery in a Labor...