URGO v. PATEL

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants' contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their motion which sought mandatory cancellation of the plaintiff's notice of pendency. CPLR 6501 permits a notice of pendency to be filed "in any action * * * in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of real property". Since the plaintiff seeks specific performance of a joint venture agreement which would require the defendants to transfer the subject real property to the enterprise, this action falls within the scope of the statute (see, Mitchell Field Realty Corp. v. United Artists Communications, 188 A.D.2d 451; Peterson v. Kelly, 173 A.D.2d 688; Yorktown Floorworld v. Wagon Prods., 170 A.D.2d 823; Flotteron v. Steinberg, 88 A.D.2d 968; cf., Felske v. Bernstein, 173 A.D.2d 677; General Property Corp. v. Diamond, 29 A.D.2d 173).