Lost Lots Associates, Ltd. v. Bruyn
| Decision Date | 29 March 1979 |
| Parties | LOST LOTS ASSOCIATES, LTD., et al., Respondents, v. Augustus H. BRUYN et al., Defendants, and Thaddeus Yuran et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
James H. Fisher, Kingston, for appellants.
Joshua N. Koplovitz, Woodstock, for respondents.
Before GREENBLOTT, J. P., and STALEY, MAIN, MIKOLL and HERLIHY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered June 5, 1978 in Ulster County, which denied defendants' motion for leave to file an amended answer.
In March of 1974, plaintiff Lost Lots Associates, Ltd. (hereinafter Lost Lots) commenced the present action, pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, to compel the determination of its claim to certain real property located in the Town of Woodstock, Ulster County. Subsequently, in February of 1978, defendants' attorney allegedly discovered that Lost Lots was a corporation comprised of three attorneys, which acquired a deed to the real property in question from plaintiff Maynard Keefe who received no monetary consideration therefor. In return for the deed, Gerald Wapner, a practicing attorney and also an officer and stockholder of Lost Lots, allegedly entered into an agreement with plaintiff Keefe whereby Wapner's law firm was to commence the present proceeding, pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, to establish title to the subject tract in Lost Lots. Additionally, the firm was to bear all costs of this litigation and share equally with plaintiff Keefe the net proceeds of any settlement of the action or from the subsequent sale of the realty if Lost Lots is unsuccessful in the lawsuit.
Upon this alleged state of facts, defendants moved in March of 1978, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (subd. (b)) for leave to amend their answer in the proceeding to assert the affirmative defense of champerty and maintenance. Finding that the proposed affirmative defense was lacking in legal merit, Special Term denied their motion, and the instant appeal ensued.
We hold that the order of Special Term should be affirmed. In New York champerty and maintenance is not a viable defense except as provided by statute (Coopers & Lybrand v. Levitt, 52 A.D.2d 493, 384 N.Y.S.2d 804), and defendants moved at Special Term for permission to assert the defense upon the ground that the conduct of Lost Lots and its attorneys in acquiring the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v. Unification Church of America
...New York does not recognize champerty as a legal wrong except as provided in a state penal statute, see Lost Lots Associates, Ltd. v. Bruyn, 68 A.D.2d 1006, 415 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1979). The district court held that the statute, set out in the margin, 3 is inapplicable here because, with respect ......
-
Colwell v. Jantzer
...and the statute is therefore inapplicable. See Sprung v. Jaffe, 3 N.Y.2d 539, 169 N.Y.S.2d 456 (1957); Lost Lots Associates, Ltd. v. Bruyn, 68 A.D.2d 1006, 415 N.Y.S.2d 99 (3d Dept.1979). Regarding defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint and the entire proceeding in the event th......
-
Colwell v. Jantzer, Index No.: 13237/2009
...the statute is therefore inapplicable. See Sprung v. Jaffe, 3 N.Y.2d 539, 169 N.Y.S.2d 456 (1957); Lost Lots Associates, Ltd. v. Bruyn, 68 A.D.2d 1006, 415 N.Y.S.2d 99 (3d Dept. 1979). Regarding defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint and the entire proceeding in the event that ......
-
Blasch v. Chrysler Motors Corp.
...and leave to amend should be denied" (Winn v. Bratti Assoc., 80 Misc.2d 756, 758, 364 N.Y.S.2d 137; see also Lost Lots Assoc. v. Bruyn, 68 A.D.2d 1006, 415 N.Y.S.2d 99). The court must decide if the proposed affirmative defenses lack legal merit which requires a determination as to whether ......