Hill v. Marks
| Decision Date | 30 October 1986 |
| Citation | 124 A.D.2d 445,507 N.Y.S.2d 544 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Frederick HILL et al., Appellants, v. Norman MARKS et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Shapiro & Goodfriend (Mark F. Goodfriend, of counsel), New City, for appellants.
Meadow, Ruf & Lalor, P.C. (Seymour Meadow, of counsel), Catskill, for respondents.
Before MAIN, J.P., and CASEY, WEISS, LEVINE and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from an amended order of the County Court of Greene County (Fromer, J.), entered September 11, 1985, which, in a proceeding pursuant to RPAPL article 7, directed, inter alia, that respondents pay petitioners unpaid rent and ordered petitioners to convey a parcel of real property to respondents.
On July 3, 1984, petitioners agreed to lease to respondents a 10-acre parcel of land situated in the Town of Catskill, Greene County. Their handwritten agreement provided for a monthly rental of $400 and gave respondents an option to purchase the parcel at a price of $1,000 per acre. With respect to the exercise of this option, the contract specified that "[u]pon purchase, [respondents] will have the 10 acres surveyed * * * and will enter into a formal contract". It appears that respondents assumed possession in September 1984 and paid the first four months rent. However, when respondents learned of a possible mortgage foreclosure upon the property, they discontinued further rental payments.
In March 1985, petitioners initiated a summary proceeding (RPAPL art. 7) in the Town of Catskill Justice Court seeking to recover both $1,600 in unpaid rent and possession of the leased property. Respondents answered, requesting that the petition be dismissed since they paid $2,200 toward the purchase price and improved the property by installing a mobile home, a well and a septic system, at an approximate cost of $35,000. Respondents further maintained that petitioners refused to enter into a formal purchase contract as anticipated in the handwritten lease. By stipulation, the proceeding was removed to County Court which, after oral argument, directed petitioners to convey to respondents the improved portion of the subject parcel (an area slightly less than one acre) at a cost of $1,000; respondents were required to reimburse petitioners for the interim rent due, since nothing in the lease agreement indicated rent payments constituted an offset against the purchase price. Petitioners have appealed, contending that County Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to fashion the equitable relief described. We agree.
County Court enjoys limited jurisdiction and may exercise equity power only insofar as specifically provided by law (N.Y.Const. art. VI, § 11[b]; Judiciary Law §§ 190, 190-b; see, Village of Catskill v. Kemper Group-Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co., 111 A.D.2d 1011, 1012, 490 N.Y.S.2d 619). Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 190(1), County Court's jurisdiction extends to, inter alia, actions for "specific performance of a contract relating to real property". While respondents maintain that County Court exercised its authority to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of The Foreclosure of Tax Liens By County of Sullivan.County of Sullivan
...enjoys limited jurisdiction and may exercise equity power only insofar as specifically provided by law” ( Matter of Hill v. Marks, 124 A.D.2d 445, 446, 507 N.Y.S.2d 544 [1986] [citations omitted]; see N.Y. Const., art. VI, § 11[b] ). While it is true that County Court has equity jurisdictio......
-
Crosby v. Crossett
...involving possession of real property. Brusco v. Braun, 84 N.Y.2d 674, 621 N.Y.S.2d 291, 645 N.E.2d 724 (1994); Hill v. Marks, 124 A.D.2d 445, 507 N.Y.S.2d 544 (3rd Dept., 1986). Respondent's issuance of an “amended decision”, judgment and warrant on his own motion without notification to a......
-
Doe v. Connell
...N.Y. Const. art. VI, § 11; Judiciary Law §§ 190, 190-b; Newhouse Props. v. McGee, 139 A.D.2d 923, 528 N.Y.S.2d 240; Matter of Hill v. Marks, 124 A.D.2d 445, 507 N.Y.S.2d 544). While County Court unquestionably has jurisdiction over the pending criminal action (see, CPL 10.10, 10.20), here, ......
-
Pisano v. Tupper
...where the real property to which the action relates is situated within the county" (Judiciary Law § 190[1]; see, Matter of Hill v. Marks, 124 A.D.2d 445, 446, 507 N.Y.S.2d 544; see also, St. Johnland Nursing Home v. Perlman, 134 Misc.2d 1048, 1051, 514 N.Y.S.2d Plaintiff's next claim, that ......