Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
KAATSBAAN INTERNATIONAL DANCE CENTER, INC., appellant, v. TBAYS, LLC, et al., respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to set aside a transfer of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated April 3, 2007, which denied its motion to consolidate this action with an action entitled Rondack Construction Services, Inc. v. Kaatsbaan International Dance Center, Inc., pending in the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, under Index No. 6260/05, and granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint on the ground of collateral estoppel.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint on the ground of collateral estoppel and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In an appeal in a related action, we are holding that the judicial sale of the subject real property to TBays, LLC (hereinafter TBays), was void (see Rondack Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Kaatsbaan Intl. Dance Ctr., Inc., 54A.D.3d 924, 864 N.Y.S.2d 127 [decided herewith] ). Therefore, the claim of the defendant Callander House, LLC, that it is a bona fide purchaser for value of the property from TBays, is not sufficient to defeat the plaintiff's claim to title (see Herman v. Siegmund, 102 A.D.2d 810, 812, 476 N.Y.S.2d 590). The Supreme Court, therefore, should not have granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped from setting aside the transfer of the real property by virtue of the Supreme Court's determination in the related action that the judicial sale was valid.
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 23, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)