LINCOLN JAMES, Respondent,
v.
EDWARD JAMES, Appellant
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
52 AD3d 474 (2008)
James v James
52 AD3d 474
Opinion
No. 2007-04974.
June 3, 2008.
In an action, inter alia, to partition real property and for an accounting, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered May 4, 2007, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Taubman Kimelman Soroka, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Antonette M. Milcetic of counsel), for appellant.
Constantino Fragale, Eastchester, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"[O]ne who holds an interest in real property as a tenant in common may seek physical partition of the property, or, a partition and sale thereof unless it appears that physical partition alone would greatly prejudice the owners of the premises" ( Bufogle v Greek, 152 AD2d 527, 528; see RPAPL 901; Graffeo v Paciello, 46 AD3d 613, 614).
Here, the plaintiff established his entitlement to summary judgment by establishing his ownership and right to possession of the subject property pursuant to a duly-executed warranty deed conveying to him a one-half interest in the subject property as a tenant in common ( see RPAPL 901; Duffy v Duffy, 21 AD3d 928, 929; Dalmacy v Joseph, 297 AD2d 329, 330). While the right of a tenant in common pursuant to RPAPL 901 to maintain an action for partition is subject to the equities of the parties ( see Graffeo v Paciello, 46 AD3d 613, 614), here the equities favor the plaintiff's position ( see generally Donlon v Diamico, 33 AD3d 841, 842).
In opposing the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether his transfer of a one-half interest in the subject property to the plaintiff was made in reliance on a promise by the plaintiff to reconvey that interest ( see Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 121; Doria v Masucci, 230 AD2d 764, 765; Bufogle v Greek, 152 AD2d 527, 528; Gargano v V.C.J. Constr. Corp., 148 AD2d 417, 418). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly rejected the defendant's contentions regarding the imposition of a constructive trust, and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment ( see Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 121; Doria v Masucci, 230 AD2d 764, 765; Bufogle v Greek, 152 AD2d 527, 528; Gargano v V.C.J. Constr. Corp., 148 AD2d 417, 418).
The case of James v James is provided as part of a free educational service by J. Douglas Barics, attorney at law, for reference only. Cases such as James may be overruled by subsequent decisions, different judicial departments may have different controlling case law, and the level of the court deciding each case will determine whether it is controlling law or not. James v James is presented here to help illustrate how the law works in general, but for specific legal matters, an attorney should be consulted.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Mr. Barics at lawyer@jdbar.com or (631) 864-2600. For more articles and information, please visit www.jdbar.com