Case Name: Julius Krainin, Plaintiff, v. Benjamin J. Coffey Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-02
Citations: 53 Misc. 6
Docket Number: 
Parties: Julius Krainin, Plaintiff, v. Benjamin J. Coffey Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 6–7

Head Matter:
Julius Krainin, Plaintiff, v. Benjamin J. Coffey Defendant.
(Supreme Court, Kings Special Term,
February, 1907.)
Lis pendens — Commencement and pendency of action and notice — Cancellation of notice — Grounds.
Where the complaint, in an action to recover a deposit made by a vendee on a contract to purchase real estate together with expenses of searching title, alleges no facts showing plaintiff’s right to resort to equity or that he has not a full and adequate remedy at law, a lis pendens filed in the action will be canceled on motion.
Motion to cancel Us pendens in an action to recover deposit made by a vendee on a contract to purchase real estate, together with expense of searching title, the complaint asking that the judgment be declared a lien upon the real estate.
J. G. Abramson, for plaintiff.
Alexander A. Forman, Jr., for defendant.

Opinion:
Kelly, J.
I do not find any allegation in the complaint justifying a notice of Us pendens. The plaintiff does not ask for specific performance; he does not want the property. He says the title is unmarketable. There are encroachments, and as to part of the property defendant has no title. There are no facts alleged or suggested showing why resort is had to equity. Plaintiff did not enter into possession; he does not allege that he has not full and adequate remedy at law. This method of refusing to take title, and then tying up the real estate by a Us pendens, without any facts showing plaintiff's right to resort to equity, or that plaintiff has not full and adequate remedy at law, is a branch of litigation which has lately become very marked in its development in the courts. It leads to injustice and oppression and, under the authority of Klim v. Sachs, 102 App. Div. 44, in this department, I think it is improper and should not be countenanced.
Motion granted.