You are here: / / RIGHT TO PARTITION IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND IS SUBJECT TO THE EQUITIES BETWEEN...

RIGHT TO PARTITION IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND IS SUBJECT TO THE EQUITIES BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff summary judgment in a partition action without holding a hearing. The right to partition is not absolute and the remedy is subject to the equities between the parties:

“A person holding and in possession of real property as joint tenant or tenant in common, in which he [or she] has an estate of inheritance, or for life, or for years, may maintain an action for the partition of the property, and for a sale if it appears that a partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners (RPAPL 901[1]). The right to partition is not absolute, however, and while a tenant in common has the right to maintain an action for partition pursuant to RPAPL 901, the remedy is always subject to the equities between the parties” … . Here, the Supreme Court implicitly acknowledged the above when it stated in its … order that the parties were directed to appear for a conference “for purposes of finding a date for a trial of the issue of existence of equitable defenses to plaintiff's request for partition.” Guo v Guo, 2016 NY Slip Op 01806, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

REAL PROPERTY (RIGHT TO PARTITION IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND IS SUBJECT TO THE EQUITIES BETWEEN THE PARTIES)/PARTITION (REAL PROPERTY, RIGHT TO PARTITION IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND IS SUBJECT TO THE EQUITIES BETWEEN THE PARTIES)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE SERVICER DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD BEEN DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Pleading Requirements for Aiding and Abetting Fraud and Fraud Explained—Requirements Not Met Here
PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Attorney Whose Testimony Would Support Client Should Have Been Disqualified Under Advocate-Witness Rule, However, the Motion to Disqualify the Attorney’s Firm Was Properly Denied
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE FIRST NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED ONLY AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACTUAL TIME-LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE PLUMBING CONTRACT; THE PURPORTED AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED $2.5 MILLION IN DAMAGES; THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE MOTION TO AMEND WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Filing of Article 78 Petition Itself Constituted a Demand that Respondent Perform Its Duty, the Triggering Event for the Four-Month Statute of Limitations in a Mandamus to Compel Proceeding/Supreme Court and Surrogate’s Court Have Concurrent Jurisdiction Over the Administration of an Estate

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

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER AUTOMOBILE LIFT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED WITHOUT A... PURCHASE PRICE OF GOLF COURSE NOT PROPER VALUATION FOR TAX PURPOSES, PURCHASE...