RPAPL

Subscribe to RPAPL via RSS
Property division concept, 3D rendering isolated on white background

In an action for the partition of real property owned by an ex-wife, her ex-husband and his parents, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to confirm the report of the Referee that recommended that the ex-husband’s parents (“the in-laws”) receive the first $1,078,710.20 from the sale of the property. Such represented the parent’s direct monetary contributions to the acquisition and construction and improvement of a house on the subject property. The balance of any proceeds are to be paid to all four parties in equal 25% shares.

Such was held by Richmond County Supreme Court Justice Wayne M. Ozzi in the November 13, 2025, decision in Mersimovski v. Mersimovski, 2025 N.Y.L.J. LEXIS 3502.

Two years earlier, Justice Ozzi had awarded the ex-wife summary judgment declaring that she was is seized and entitled in fee to an undivided one-quarter 25% interest in the premises. Mersimovski v. Mersimovski, 2023 N.Y..Misc. LEXIS 23846 (November 28, 2023).Continue Reading In-laws Win Credits on Partition-Action Sale of Shared Home

A wife’s right to reside in what has been her marital residence for four years, and whose right to do so stemmed not merely from the home-owner’s  permission, but from a true family relationship, cannot be summarily evicted as a mere licensee.  Such was the holding of Nassau County District Court Judge Eric Bjorneby in his June 20, 2013 decision in Kakwani v. Kakwani.

Ms. Anjili Kakwani (the “petitioner”), her brother (Amit Kakwani [the “husband”]) and their parents moved into a one family residence in Carle Place in 2004. The petitioner’s mother, as trustee of a family trust, conveyed the home to the petitioner on December 8, 2006.

In March, 2008 Amit Kakwani traveled to India where, for the first time, he met his arranged bride-to-be, the respondent Nisha Kakwani (the “wife”). In September, 2008, the petitioner and Amit traveled to India where the petitioner met her future sister-in-law for the first time. In November, 2008 the respondent moved by herself to the United States and into the Kakwani family home. On December 22, 2008 respondent and Amit Kakwani were married.

Amit and Nisha resided in the master bedroom of the family home, as husband and wife, until sometime in 2012 or early 2013 when Amit moved out of the master bedroom and into another room in the house.
In September, 2013, the petitioner had respondent served with a 10-Day Notice to Quit.

The petitioner brought this summary proceeding pursuant to RPAPL §713(7) to evict the respondent (the petitioner’s sister-in-law) on the ground that respondent was a licensee whose license to reside at the premises had been revoked. (The husband, Amit, was not named as a respondent in this proceeding, nor had rent ever been sought from or paid by Amit [or by his wife, for that matter].)

The wife sought dismissal of the proceeding, claiming that she is a family member not subject to eviction in a summary proceeding brought pursuant to RPAPL §713(7).Continue Reading Summary Proceedings Are Not Available to Evict Wife (Sister-in-Law of Owner)