Case ID: ad_170/html/0321-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Urania U. Glaser, Appellant, v. Frances H. Burns, Wife of John Burns, and Others, Defendants, Impleaded with John N. Burns, Appellant. Bridge Café, Intervenor, Respondent.
    Second Department,
    November 19, 1915.
    Partition of realty and chattel real—intervention by party interested in renewed term of lease — receiver pendente lite.
    Where, in an action for partition of realty and of a chattel real, it appears that one of the defendants has entered into an agreement to sell and to assign The renewed term of the lease if granted to parties unknown, the discretion of the Special Term in allowing a party which has identified itself with the other party to said agreement to intervene as a party defendant should not be disturbed.
    Under the circumstances, a receiver pendente lite of the household property should not have been appointed.
    Cross-appeals by the plaintiff, Urania U. Glaser, and the defendant, John X. Burns, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 24th day of May, 1915.
    
      Maurice J. Dix [James A. Donnelly and Harry E. Fajans with him on the brief], for the appellants.
    
      Ferdinand E. M. Bullowa, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam:

The appeal is taken by the plaintiff and by the defendant John X. Burns from an order of the Special Term that grants the motion of the Bridge Café to intervene as a party defendant, and for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite of the leasehold property. The action is for partition of realty and of a chattel real. The latter was the subject-matter of Burns v. City of New York (213 N. Y. 516). The plaintiff in the case at bar complained that the Burns had entered into an agreement to sell and to assign the renewed term of the lease, if granted, to parties unknown. The Bridge Café identified itself with the other party to the said agreement. We think that the discretion of the Special Term (See Pope v. Manhattan Railway Co., 79 App. Div. 583) should not be disturbed so far as the intervention .of the Bridge Café is concerned. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Townsend v. Bogert, 126 N. Y. 370; Delcambre v. Delcambre, 210 id. 460, 466.) By this affirmance nothing more is determined than the propriety of the order that makes the Bridge Café a party. The contention of the respondent who sought for a receiver is, that the said lease for years passed to Burns as administrator de bonis non. We think that under the circumstances the court should not have taken the property from him. (See Patterson v. McCunn, 46 How. Pr. 182.)

The order must be modified as indicated in this opinion, and as so modified it is affirmed, without costs.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Order modified in accordance with opinion, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.