Justice David Schmidt
Buyer 573 Elton moved to cancel and discharge a notice of pendency filed by 141 Sunnyside against the subject real property and dismissing 141′s claims to the extent they sought specific performance or other relief against 573. 141′s suit alleged M. Zoarez Inc. breached a contract of sale of the premises to 141 by improperly cancelling it. 141 sought specific performance based on the alleged breach, but learned Zoarez sold the premises to 573, which was given leave to intervene in the action seeking summary judgment arguing it was a bona fide purchaser for value. The court noted 141 did not record its contract, stating an unrecorded contract of sale was deemed void against a subsequent buyer who recorded his conveyance if he was a bona fide purchaser for value. It ruled 573 demonstrated it paid valuable consideration for the premises, and showed it did not have notice of the 141 contract, or knowledge of fact requiring it to inquire further. Also, as the notice of pendency was filed after the property was conveyed to 573, the notice did not provide 573 with constructive notice of 141′s interest in the premises before the conveyance, thus did not affect the bona fides of 573′s purchase. Hence, 573 was entitled to summary judgment dismissing 141′s claims.
