You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PHYSICAL PARTITION OR SALE IS THE APPROPRIATE...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PHYSICAL PARTITION OR SALE IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY RE: A FOUR-FAMILY BROWNSTONE.

In an action for partition and sale of a four-family brownstone, the Second Department determined Supreme Court properly determined there was a question of fact whether physical partition or sale was the appropriate remedy:

“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” … . “The actual physical partition of property is the preferred method and is presumed appropriate unless one party demonstrates that actual physical partition would cause great prejudice, in which case the property must be sold at public auction” … .

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, there is a question of fact as to whether physical partition or sale of the subject property is appropriate … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which sought a sale of the property, and properly appointed a referee to determine whether physical partition or sale was the appropriate remedy. Perretta v Perretta, 2016 NY Slip Op 06814, 2nd Dept 10-19-16

 

REAL PROPERTY (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PHYSICAL PARTITION OR SALE IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY RE: A FOUR-FAMILY BROWNSTONE)/PARTITION (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PHYSICAL PARTITION OR SALE IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY RE: A FOUR-FAMILY BROWNSTONE)/PHYSICAL PARTITION (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PHYSICAL PARTITION OR SALE IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY RE: A FOUR-FAMILY BROWNSTONE)

You might also like
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF’S 50-H EXAMINATION TESTIMONY DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE “FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT” DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT). ​
COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO DEFENDANT’S HISTORICAL CELL SITE LOCATION DATA INCLUDED AN EXPRESS FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND WAS THEREFORE THE EQUIVALENT OF A WARRANT (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION TO AMEND A NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS UNTIMELY WITH RESPECT TO THE PARENTS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE PETITIONERS DID NOT SHOW THAT THE TOWN HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF TOWN PERSONNEL, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT). ​
INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERED REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROCURED, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER’S CLAIM HE COULDN’T STOP BECAUSE HIS CAR SKIDDED ON WET METAL GRATING DID NOT ESTABLISH THE REAR-END COLLISION WAS UNAVOIDABLE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER, WHO DEFAULTED, ENTITLED TO DISPOSITIONAL HEARING IN PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE HER PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON MENTAL ILLNESS AND PERMANENT NEGLECT.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (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

DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT ENTITLED TO FULL NAMES OF ALL PERSONS WHOSE INITIALS APPEAR... ZONING BOARD DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE DURATIONAL LIMIT ON...