23 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1871–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
5303 Realty Corp. v. O & Y Equity Corp.green2 sentences2025CPLR 6501 provides that "[a] notice of pendency may be filed in any action in a court of the state or of the United States in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, incumbrance of, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property" (CPLR 6501 [a]). "[A] litigant's ability to file a notice of pendency [is] an extraordinary privilege because of the relative ease by which it can be obtained and its powerful effect on the alienability of real property" ( Matter of Sakow , 97 NY2d 436, 441 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp. , 64 2025CPLR 6501 provides that "[a] notice of pendency may be filed in any action in a court of the state or of the United States in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, incumbrance of, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property" (CPLR 6501 [a]). "[A] litigant's ability to file a notice of pendency [is] an extraordinary privilege because of the relative ease by which it can be obtained and its powerful effect on the alienability of real property" ( Matter of Sakow , 97 NY2d 436, 441 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp. , 64 | 4 | 4 |
Israelson v. Bradleygreen2 sentences2007The Court stated (at 319) that “[t]he purpose of the doctrine was to assure that a court retained its ability to effect justice by preserving its power over the property, regardless of whether a purchaser had any notice of the pending suit,” and (at 320) “the statutory scheme permits a party to effectively retard the alienability of real property without any prior judicial review.” In Israelson v Bradley ( 308 NY 511, 516 [1955]), the Court observed that with a notice of pendency a plaintiff who has an interest in real property has received from the State “an extraordinary privilege which . . 2006However, in order to avail oneself of this extraordinary privilege to affect the transfer of real property, strict compliance with the statutory procedures is required (see Israelson v Bradley, 308 NY 511, 515-516 [1955]; Weiner v MKVII-Westchester, 292 AD2d 597 [2d Dept 2002]). | 3 | 9 |
In Re the Estate of Sakowgreen2 sentences2025CPLR 6501 provides that "[a] notice of pendency may be filed in any action in a court of the state or of the United States in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, incumbrance of, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property" (CPLR 6501 [a]). "[A] litigant's ability to file a notice of pendency [is] an extraordinary privilege because of the relative ease by which it can be obtained and its powerful effect on the alienability of real property" ( Matter of Sakow , 97 NY2d 436, 441 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp. , 64 2025CPLR 6501 provides that "[a] notice of pendency may be filed in any action in a court of the state or of the United States in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, incumbrance of, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property" (CPLR 6501 [a]). "[A] litigant's ability to file a notice of pendency [is] an extraordinary privilege because of the relative ease by which it can be obtained and its powerful effect on the alienability of real property" ( Matter of Sakow , 97 NY2d 436, 441 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp. , 64 | 2 | 2 |
Delidimitropoulos v. Karantinidisgreen2 sentences2025As relevant here, a court may "entertain[ ] a motion to cancel a notice of pendency in its inherent power," based upon its own analysis as to "whether the [*2]pleading complies with CPLR 6501" ( Delidimitropoulos v Karantinidis , 142 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). 2025As relevant here, a court may "entertain[ ] a motion to cancel a notice of pendency in its inherent power," based upon its own analysis as to "whether the [*2]pleading complies with CPLR 6501" ( Delidimitropoulos v Karantinidis , 142 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Nastasi v. Nastasigreen2 sentences2006(See CPLR 6514 [a], [b].) In addition, “[c]ancellation of a notice of pendency can be granted in the exercise of the inherent power of the court where its filing fails to comply with CPLR 6501.” (Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 36 [2d Dept 2005], citing 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313, 320-321 [1984]; see Rose v Montt Assets, 250 AD2d 451 [1st Dept 1998].) When the court exercises its inherent power to determine if the pleading complies with CPLR 6501 on a motion to cancel a notice of pendency, the court does not assess the likelihood of success on the merits nor does it con 2006(See CPLR 6514 [a], [b].) In addition, “[c]ancellation of a notice of pendency can be granted in the exercise of the inherent power of the court where its filing fails to comply with CPLR 6501.” (Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 36 [2d Dept 2005], citing 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313, 320-321 [1984]; see Rose v Montt Assets, 250 AD2d 451 [1st Dept 1998].) When the court exercises its inherent power to determine if the pleading complies with CPLR 6501 on a motion to cancel a notice of pendency, the court does not assess the likelihood of success on the merits nor does it con | 1 | 1 |
Richards v. Chubagreen1 sentence2006(See CPLR 6514 [a], [b].) In addition, “[c]ancellation of a notice of pendency can be granted in the exercise of the inherent power of the court where its filing fails to comply with CPLR 6501.” (Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 36 [2d Dept 2005], citing 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313, 320-321 [1984]; see Rose v Montt Assets, 250 AD2d 451 [1st Dept 1998].) When the court exercises its inherent power to determine if the pleading complies with CPLR 6501 on a motion to cancel a notice of pendency, the court does not assess the likelihood of success on the merits nor does it con | 1 | 1 |
Rose v. Montt Assets, Inc.green2 sentences2006Discussion CPLR 6501 states in pertinent part: “A notice of pendency may be filed in any action in a court of the state or of the United States in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property . . . .” The notice of pendency is “considered an extraordinary privilege, and the litigant must strictly comply with the statutory requirements.” (Rose v Montt Assets, 250 AD2d 451, 452 [1st Dept 1998], citing 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313, 320 [1984].) CPLR 6514 provides for mandatory and discretionary cancellation of 2006(See CPLR 6514 [a], [b].) In addition, “[c]ancellation of a notice of pendency can be granted in the exercise of the inherent power of the court where its filing fails to comply with CPLR 6501.” (Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 36 [2d Dept 2005], citing 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313, 320-321 [1984]; see Rose v Montt Assets, 250 AD2d 451 [1st Dept 1998].) When the court exercises its inherent power to determine if the pleading complies with CPLR 6501 on a motion to cancel a notice of pendency, the court does not assess the likelihood of success on the merits nor does it con | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morris Electronics of Syracuse, Inc. v. Stereo East Developments, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2008Devs., 71 AD2d 1061 [1979]). 1984We reverse. 11A trial preference in the interest of justice (CPLR 3403, subd [a], par 3) should only be granted where circumstances are sufficiently unusual and extreme to justify the extraordinary privilege (Morris Electronics v Stereo East Devs., 71 AD2d 1061, 1062 ), since the granting of a preference represents a favoring of one case over many others awaiting trial (Smith v Schnabel, 34 AD2d 603, 604 ). | 2 | 1984–2008 |
In re Fishbein
green
1 sentence2018Matter of Hazelhurst , 144 AD3d 31 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of Albanese , 274 AD2d 284 [1st Dept 2000]; Matter of Fishbein , 167 AD2d 85 [1st Dept 1991]. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Matter of Hazelhurst
green
1 sentence2018Matter of Hazelhurst , 144 AD3d 31 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of Albanese , 274 AD2d 284 [1st Dept 2000]; Matter of Fishbein , 167 AD2d 85 [1st Dept 1991]. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re Albanese
green
1 sentence2018Matter of Hazelhurst , 144 AD3d 31 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of Albanese , 274 AD2d 284 [1st Dept 2000]; Matter of Fishbein , 167 AD2d 85 [1st Dept 1991]. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
La Porta v. Fretto Enterprises, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2008A trial preference in the interests of justice should only be granted where the circumstances are sufficiently unusual and extreme to justify the extraordinary privilege (La Porta v Fretto Enters., 100 AD2d 713 [1984]; Morris Elecs. of Syracuse v Stereo E. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Weiner v. MKVII-Westchester, LLC
green
1 sentence2006However, in order to avail oneself of this extraordinary privilege to affect the transfer of real property, strict compliance with the statutory procedures is required (see Israelson v Bradley, 308 NY 511, 515-516 [1955]; Weiner v MKVII-Westchester, 292 AD2d 597 [2d Dept 2002]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence1990In Matter of Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ. (supra), we held that probationary teachers in the public school system could not be required constitutionally to submit to random urine testing for drug abuse. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Doar v. Kozick
green
1 sentence1985The filing of a notice of pendency is an extraordinary privilege available only if the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property (Chambi v Navarro, Vives & Cia, 95 AD2d 667 ; Doar v Kozick, 87 AD2d 603 ; CPLR 6501; see, 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Chambi v. Navarro, Vives & Cia, Ltd.
green
1 sentence1985The filing of a notice of pendency is an extraordinary privilege available only if the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property (Chambi v Navarro, Vives & Cia, 95 AD2d 667 ; Doar v Kozick, 87 AD2d 603 ; CPLR 6501; see, 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., 64 NY2d 313 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People ex rel. Washington v. La Vallee
green
2 sentences1984We reverse. 11A trial preference in the interest of justice (CPLR 3403, subd [a], par 3) should only be granted where circumstances are sufficiently unusual and extreme to justify the extraordinary privilege (Morris Electronics v Stereo East Devs., 71 AD2d 1061, 1062 ), since the granting of a preference represents a favoring of one case over many others awaiting trial (Smith v Schnabel, 34 AD2d 603, 604 ). 1984Each case must essentially be decided on its own facts rather than by adherence to a rigid set of prescribed rules (Smith v Schnabel, supra). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Alicia C. ex rel. Zulema C. v. Evaristo G.
green
1 sentence1984In order to explain the extraordinary challenge to the accuracy of the HLA test results in the present case, it is necessary to indicate the difference between this case’s specific challenge and prior challenges of the HLA evidence. 2 The Family Court in Matter of Alicia C. v Evaristo G. ( 115 Misc 2d 564 [Fam Ct, Queens County 1983]) declined to admit the results of the HLA test on account of an arbitrary, subjective determination of race by the examiner, and dismissed the petition. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Dodumoff v. Lyons
neutral
1 sentence1979A CPLR 3403 (subd [a], par 3) preference should only be granted where the circumstances are sufficiently unusual and extreme to justify the extraordinary privilege (see Dodumoff v Lyons, 4 AD2d 626 ; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3403.10). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Shapiro v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York
green
2 sentences1977Plan of Greater N. Y. , 7 N.Y.2d 56, 60-61 .) Now applying the principles to which we have alluded, we note first that, while Dr. Corey's role in communicating with the tenure committee no doubt was an important one to the parties involved, and not least of all to himself as acting president and vice-president of the college, neither of his two offices falls within the class of executive positions in our State and local government for whom the extraordinary doctrine of *280 absolute privilege is intended. 1977Plan of Greater N. Y, 7 NY2d 56, 60-61 .) Now applying the principles to which we have alluded, we note first that, while Dr. Corey’s role in communicating with the tenure committee no doubt was an important one to the parties involved, and not least of all to himself as acting president and vice-president of the college, neither of his two offices falls within the class of executive positions in our State and local government for whom the extraordinary doctrine of absolute privilege is intended. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
In re Orans
green
1 sentence1965Certainly, Mr. Justice Levy’s elaborated opinion provides no suggestion of such an extraordinary presumption (Matter of Orans, 45 Misc 2d 616 , supra). | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Weeks v. . Tomes, Iselin
neutral
1 sentence1955(Weeks v. Tomes, 16 Hun 349 , 351, affd. 76 N. Y. 601 .) This is an extraordinary privilege which has been granted to a litigant upon the mere filing of the notice of a pendency of action, a summons and a complaint, and strict compliance with the requirements of section 120 is required. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Van Dyke v. Jackson
neutral
1 sentence1874In Van Dyke v. Jackson ( 1 E.D. | 1 | 1874–1874 |
Lorillard v. Town of Monroe
neutral
1 sentence1871It would be an extraordinary doctrine to hold that money appropriated for the benefit of a town could in no way be reached except by an action against the supervisor, individually, through whose hands it had formally passed; why should the supervisor be liable, when he has received no benefit and merely acted officially % The cases relied upon to sustain this position do not go to the extent claimed. (1 Kern., 574, 392; 12 Barb., 161 .) The objections made to the admission of evidence were properly overruled. | 1 | 1871–1871 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.