The plaintiff moved for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation over a residential redevelopment property, alleging an oral joint venture agreement granting him an interest in the land.
The defendant denied the existence of any joint venture and argued the plaintiff acted only as a real estate agent.
The court found the plaintiff met the low threshold of establishing a triable issue regarding an interest in land.
However, after considering additional equitable factors—including lack of property uniqueness, the investment nature of the purchase, the availability and ease of calculating damages, and the existence of an alternative damages claim—the court concluded a CPL was not appropriate.
The balance of convenience did not favour registration, and the motion was dismissed.