The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) over a commercial development property, claiming a 10% beneficial interest based on alleged oral agreements and financial contributions.
The defendants opposed, disputing the existence of a binding agreement or trust.
The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' claim to an interest in the property, satisfying the initial low evidentiary threshold for a CPL.
However, after balancing the equities, the court exercised its discretion to deny the CPL.
The court reasoned that the property was acquired for profit, making damages a satisfactory and calculable remedy, and that the property was not unique.
Furthermore, the CPL would act as an injunction, causing greater harm and inconvenience to the defendants by delaying development and sale while they remained responsible for carrying costs.
