Sugarman v. Malone

• Decision Date: 08 June 2006
• Docket Number: 8741.
• Citation: Sugarman v. Malone, 30 A.D.3d 197, 816 N.Y.S.2d 453, 2006 NY Slip Op 4521 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
• Parties: LYDIA K. SUGARMAN, Appellant, v. LAURENCE F. MALONE, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

30 A.D.3d 197

816 N.Y.S.2d 453

2006 NY Slip Op 04521

LYDIA K. SUGARMAN, Appellant, v. LAURENCE F. MALONE, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

8741.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

June 8, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered August 29, 2005, which, in a declaratory judgment action involving plaintiff's rights in the subject cooperative apartment by reason of adverse possession, and seeking related monetary and injunctive relief, denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant-respondent adverse claimant (Malone) and defendant housing cooperative from prosecuting a summary proceeding in Civil Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff moved into the subject apartment in 1984 when she married her husband Howard. Although Howard told plaintiff that he owned the apartment, it appears that it was actually owned by his father, Jack; nevertheless, when Howard died in 1990, plaintiff continued to reside in the apartment and pay the maintenance and other bills. Jack died in 1995, leaving his estate, including the apartment, to his daughter, Thea, who died in 1996 and was Malone's wife. In 2004, Malone served a notice to quit on plaintiff, allegedly after unsuccessful negotiations involving her purchase of the apartment from him, and he commenced a Civil Court holdover proceeding against her in 2005; shortly thereafter, plaintiff commenced the instant declaratory judgment action claiming title by reason of adverse possession. The motion court denied plaintiff's motion to stay the holdover proceeding and enjoin other acts by defendants prejudicial to her occupancy of the apartment, holding that she was not entitled to a presumption of hostility because she and the apartment's owners were family members (citing, inter alia, ...