Chasewood v. Kay

MEMORANDUM & ORDER INTRODUCTION   Plaintiff Dorothy Chasewood brings this action for partition and sale of real property located at 176 West Street, Brooklyn, New York (the “property”), pursuant to Article 9 of the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”). Presently before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granting partition and sale of the property and, if required, the appointment of a referee to accomplish partition and sale and conduct an accounting with respect to proper distribution of the sale proceeds. For the reasons and to the extent described below, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted. FACTS A. Plaintiff’s Version The following facts are drawn from plaintiff’s statement filed in accordance with Rule 56.1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. See Pl.’s Statement of Uncontested Facts (“Pl.’s 56.1″), Dkt. 36-1. Where defendant’s Rule 56.1 statement controverts a fact put forth in plaintiff’s Rule 56.1 statement, that dispute is noted below. See Def. Christopher Kay’s Statement Controverting Pl.’s Rule 56.1 Statement and Statement of Additional Material Facts Pursuant to Rule 56.1 (“Def.’s 56.1″), Dkt. 38-4. Plaintiff and defendant are tenants in common of the property by deed dated October 17, 2016. Pl.’s 56.1 1; Bargain and Sale Deed, Pl.’s Ex. 3 (“Deed”), Dkt. 36-5. The Deed lists 176 West Street Corp. as grantor and plaintiff and defendant as grantees. Pl.’s 56.1 2; Deed at 1.¹ Plaintiff and defendant were married in 2000 and divorced in 2009. Pl.’s 56.1 4; Final J. Dissolving Marriage, Pl.’s Ex. 2 (“Divorce Judgment”), Dkt. 36-4.² The parties entered into a “Separation and Settlement Agreement” that the Divorce Judgment approved and incorporated by reference. Divorce Judgment 6. The Agreement and Divorce Judgment provide that plaintiff and defendant are each entitled to a 50 percent interest in 176 West Street Corp., which was at that time the owner of the property. Pl.’s 56.1

5-6; Divorce Judgment, Separation and Settlement Agreement at 24.³ Plaintiff contends that, despite this provision in the Separation and Settlement agreement, defendant refused to transfer a 50 percent interest in 176 West Street Corp. to her. Pl.’s 56.1 7. Plaintiff thereafter brought an enforcement proceeding in Florida against defendant. Id. 8. That proceeding resulted in a stipulation and order effectively dissolving 176 West Street Corp. as of October 26, 2011, by which time defendant still had not transferred any interest in the corporation to plaintiff. Id.