Summary
This New York Appellate Division opinion addresses whether a plaintiff in a partition action involving "heirs property" failed to negotiate in good faith under the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (UPHPA). The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the action after a referee determined that the plaintiff did not properly consider required equitable factors during mandatory settlement conferences. The decision clarifies that good faith negotiations under RPAPL 993(5)(e) require parties to evaluate statutory equitable factors when attempting to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court erred in finding that Laurelton Estates, LLC failed to negotiate in good faith under RPAPL 993(5)(e) and therefore properly dismissed the partition action.
- Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a valuation hearing under RPAPL 993(6) after the Gordon Report.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion and affirmed the dismissal because the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith as required by RPAPL 993(5)(e).
- The plaintiff was not entitled to a valuation hearing because the failure to negotiate in good faith barred such relief under RPAPL 993(6).
Key quotations
“The plaintiff did not give due consideration to the equitable factors that under RPAPL 993(5)(c) and (9)(a) were required to be part of the good faith negotiations during the settlement conferences.” (at 1)
“Accordingly, the Gordon Report concluded that the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith ... the action should be dismissed.” (at 1)
Factual background
The property in Queens was owned 50% by Winston A. Bennett (later sold to Laurelton Estates, LLC) and 25% by Diane J. Prince (heir of Gertrude Bennett). Laurelton Estates, LLC owned 75% and sought partition and sale. Multiple mandatory settlement conferences were held under the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (RPAPL 993). The referee concluded the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith, recommending dismissal. The Supreme Court adopted that recommendation.
Procedural history
The plaintiff filed a partition‑and‑sale action in August 2020. The Supreme Court entered orders granting summary judgment, confirming a referee's report, and later ordered a dismissal under RPAPL 993(5)(f) after finding the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal and the denial of its motion to reject the Gordon Report and to obtain a valuation hearing.