Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Bohemian Brethren Presbyterian Church v. Greek Archdiocesan Cathedral of the Holy Trinity

70 A.D.2d 538

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1979-05-10
Topic
general

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 25, 1978, denying the branch of defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action, that the action is barred by section 2001 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law and that the action is barred by laches, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements. We take this occasion to observe that the instant matter is governed by the rationale set forth in Kossoff v Rathgeb-Walsh (3 NY2d 583). Apart from this observation, we perceive no reason warranting departure from the result arrived at by Special Term, where the motion was solely pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7). (See Rovello v Oroñno Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Fein, Lupiano and Yesawich, JJ. [94 Mise 2d 841.]

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bohemian Brethren Presbyterian Church v. Greek Archdiocesan Cathedral of the Holy Trinity. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
BOHEMIAN BRETHREN v. GREEK ARCHDIOCESAN,70 A.D.2d 538[1st Dept 1979]
BOHEMIAN BRETHREN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Also Known as JAN HUS CHURCH (UNITED
PRESBYTERIAN), Respondent, v. GREEK ARCHDIOCESAN CATHEDRAL OF THE HOLY
TRINITY, Also Known as HELLENIC EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF NEW YORK, Also
Known as GREEK ORTHODOX CATHEDRAL OF NEW YORK, Also Known as GREEK CATHEDRAL
OF THE HOLTY TRINITY, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
May 10, 1979
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 25, 1978, denying the branch of defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action, that the action is barred by section 2001 Real Prop. Acts. of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law and that the action is barred by laches, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements. We take this occasion to observe that the instant matter is governed by the rationale set forth inKossoff v. Rathgeb-Walsh(3 N.Y.2d 583). Apart from this observation, we perceive no reason warranting departure from the result arrived at by Special Term, where the motion was solely pursuant to CPLR3211(subd [a], par 7). (SeeRovello v. Orofino Realty Co.,40 N.Y.2d 633.)

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Birns, Fein, Lupiano and Yesawich, JJ. [94 Misc.2d 841.]