Lefkowitz-Greenberger v Lefkowitz

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Lefkowitz-Greenberger v Lefkowitz 2019 NY Slip Op 30575(U) February 8, 2019 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 506760/17 Judge: Johnny L. Baynes Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2019 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 506760/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/07/2019 At IAS a(n) Part of the Court in and for S eet, of County NY day at the Adams on the 11201, of February, held York, Kings at 360 thereof, Brooklyn, Supreme of the of New State the Courthouse 68 2019: PRESENT: JOHNNY HON. L. BAYNES, JSC. -------------- --- Index ----------¬----------------------------x No.: 506760/17 ROSE LEFKOWITZ-GREENBERGER, . Plaintiff, -against- JULIUS LEFKOWITZ, Defendants. ------------------------ Rose Plaintiff, Defendant brother, with Julius meritorious Rose an Order submitted temporary this Court file a formal a March granted Answer to 19, This Show on 2018 of seek Court legal this action declaratory and equitable excuse of the the counsel. This 1 1 of 5 his for letter her relief a and Answer, a imposing plots. with Court and be default and as a formal judgmeñt default, his defaulting underlying in connection to open that requesting a default seeking against plots. rejected disposal commcñced a letter a valid conference application burial submitted Cause Julius' seeking several statement Defendant's and/or in and action. Order restraining During unsworn to the ("Julius") rights defaulted, of his defense Lefkowitz respective originally in view opened ("Rose"), Lefkowitz-Greenberg Julius to their respect ------------------------------------X the and further motion, foregoing granted him 30 days granted Plaintiff's [*FILED: 2] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2019 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 506760/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/07/2019 application the his not had Eric son, filed his support of commemorating be enforceable, Venture and Julius, the terms whether in any event father, himself, restore, profit. is a deed In this she said that Julius that the been such that their of the 2 2 of 5 also appeared Island, plots. plots were and its terms would meruit, for said Joint at issue. Rose the had refers herself underlying matter. parents, funds but Staten in this that partnership Rose with proffered, an unrelated not appeared burial nine he purchased to which Defendant essentially as quantum plots an unauthenticated produced owns in that Julius, most alleges husband house basis, burial in reality, of interest. or suggesting the Venture Solomon's has advanced and Joint decesed he alone Venture, owned sister, was, has Joint parents they his a two-family regard, reflecting that unrelated Rose's sell their venture agreement he was attorney alleges No he ("Solomon"), Rose, other that as his protect between or some contract with joint such disposal that however, indicated essentially venture any believes the and and of in disagrees after a joint counsel, Lefkowitz ELLERTON.to determined it was appearing Solomon Venture"). alleges that independently, buy, "Joint than Julius' on Court. who complaint from (the Plaintiff however, rather injunction conference, attorney, father, this or retained Answer, Plaintiff's money husband Rose's his by 13* December WILLIAM guardian, with lifted uncle,.non-party, Substantively, purchased until a formal a temporary imposing a corporate parties' The through yet Lefkowitz, in appearing and a subsequent During of extent unless plots underlying Julius to the solely which they copy of and ended, between (the plots underlying their to "Partnership") completed what that at a he maintains [*FILED: 3] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2019 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 506760/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/07/2019 Julius their concedes mother Plots leaving and and 1 thorough . During would presumably solely to extent Uncle Solomon. First, however pleadings rules 1081 of of the (2007), is for to their father. to make pro se their rules was agreed this 7 Plot for intended her, whichever and that said plot lifted its stay Court with cantankerous respect to between dealings forward. to be "liberally stringent U.S. 89, do not theories S.Ct. 127 94, construed, than standards construction and that that Solomon, are 551 arguments advancing in Plots if necessary, to less 9, and . parties going liberal of maintains Uncle and Plot respectively Accordingly, v. Pardus, such however, the pleadings be held in first construction." guidelines parties' Erickson lawyers, buried arrangements, certain buried Rose acrimonious must pleaded, or justify evidence, plots set forth rule, which conference, protracted will inartfully by next Julius as a general drafted L.Ed.2d one was are "under currently foregoing allowing Court this parties, and, of 8 empty, December the be the in view Now, the of husband survivors, Plot 5, and foregoing one prevails, Holocaust is allegedly the sibling deceased Rose's both father, maiñtaiñs Julius that not formal 167 2197, the supersede at by hinted the pro se party. On the appears to be sought Supreme Court as to the or not that other rights further a declaratory may and relief hand, although pursuant render other broad legal of the entail original CPLR judgment be claimed not of authority relations does in her cited a declaratory is or could judgment not parties (emphasis coercive 3 3 of 5 PlaintifFs papers, § 3001 tlie having which provides effect of to a justiciable added)." relief, but controversy In this only a final regard, provides relief that "[t]he judgment whether it is noted a declaration 6 [*FILED: 4] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2019 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 506760/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 of RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/07/2019 rights between 59 N.Y.2d Erlbaum, generis writs and and public M. that at the are of to whether (2) "Statute of would grounds arguments appear the alleged pursuant to a written a deed, private and Joint as lack of are and/or Venture to such pursuant Obligatiolis and instrument, such there whether to General it is forward, going to be (1) be unenforceable set aside to their commemorate reduced both M. 150). or understandings if not special of remedy." from . is sui limitations derived N.E.2d v. relief Such procedural rights issues, (1983). agreements alleged Frauds") equitable any unaddressed Mus×cuthau an extraordinary deemed to focus enforceably any or partnership parties the litigation. 150 and 451 392, later N.E.2d to declare N.Y.S.2d yet obvious, it is not authority inspiring 451 objections since 464 forestall 392, substantive broad 147-48, most venture there have purporting Partnership, (the the N.Y.S.2d remedies, hopes documents 5-701 both does Court law. joint 464 "escapes In the any 143, will it is hoped, that, extraordinary this Thus, noted parties a Law whether (3) undue capacity, or fraud. influence, . For now, ORDERED to interpose 28, or otherwise in West Cemetery row number - Section ADJUDGED and/or retain that legal default Defendant's counsel is vacated, is extended, sua sponte, and to his time February it is further ORDERED selling AND an Answer and 2019; it is however, 7, said 2; and ADJUDGED disposing of Babylon, NY graves being that Defendant those certain identified part is stayed burial as grave of lots numbered it is further 4 4 of 5 plots from transferring, located numbers 79-90 in Beth gifting, Moses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and inclusive in Block 29, 9, in § [*FILED: 5] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2019 04:17 PM INDEX NO. 506760/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/07/2019 . ORDERED their SOLOMON uncle or any ELLERTON, guardian ADJUDGED The foregoing the LEFKOWITZ subsequent appears formally that via guardian parties his the shall hereto current Courts serve guardian may appoint, all future pleadings WILLIAM A. whether or not herein. constitutes the and Decision Order of the Court. . . ENTER JO Y JSC NANCYT.8 Clerk 5 5 of 5 said on

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.