Case ID: ny-st-rep_45/html/0004-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pratt, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Susan Walters, Ex’rx, Resp’t, v. Albert E. Kraemer, Def’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 8, 1892.)
    
    Appeal—Lis pendens—Person not a party.
    In an action for a debt plaintiff procured an attachment and filed a notice of pendency of action, which was indexed against defendant and also against his wife, who was not a party but who owned the property, which she subsequently sold. She then moved to vacate the notice as to her, which motion was denied. Held, that as she was not a party to the action and had no interest in the property, she had no standing to enable her to appeal from the order.
    Appeal by Fredericka Kraemer from an order denying her motion to discharge a notice of pendency of action.
    The' plaintiff, on June 7, 1890, commenced an action against-one Albert E. Kraemer to recover the amount due on certain promissory notes. She also caused a notice of pendency of action to be filed in Queens county clerk’s office, July 2, 1890, and obtained a warrant of attachment. The property described in said notice of pendency of action, on July 2, 1890, belonged to Fredericka Kraemer, not a party to the action. The said Fredericka Kreamer, who is the appellant on this motion, subsequently conveyed the premises to one Hicks.
    The said Fredericka Kraemer, appellant, afterwards ascertained that the notice of pendency of action was on file and indexed against her name, although she had no notice of the fact, not being a party to the action. On December 0, 1890, she caused a. motion to be made in the supreme court, special term, for an order directing the county clerk of Queens county to discharge-said notice of pendency of action from record. Judge Bartlett, sitting at special term, denied the motion, “ on the ground that, the moving party had no standing to make the motion after having conveyed away her property.”
    
      George Wallace, for app’lt; Albert W Seaman, for resp’t.
   Pratt, J.

The plaintiff had a right to attach • whatever interest the defendant had in the property levied on under the-attachment.

It is immaterial whether it was proper for plaintiff to file a notice of pendency of action and index it against Fredericka Kraemer upon this motion, as she has no standing in court sufficient, to enable her to bring this appeal. She is neither a party to the suit, nor, so far as appears, has any interest in the subject-matter of the action, nor is she aggrieved by the order appealed from. Matter of Watson v. Nelson, 69 N. Y., 539; Code, § 1294; Chautauqua Co. Bank v. Risley, 19 N. Y., 375; Bergen v. Carman, 79 id., 146.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J., concur.