As the parties, who took title to these premises as husband and wife, were never legally married, they hold the premises as joint tenants (EPTL 6-2.2 [c]). It is not disputed that plaintiff contributed equally to the purchase of the premises, and there is no reason to question the determination of the IAS Court that the parties intended to have identical interests in the premises. Clearly, plaintiff's delay in bringing this action did not amount to laches, and any issue as...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
