§ 6515.Undertaking for cancellation of notice of pendency; security by plaintiff.
Article 65. Notice of Pendency · Last amended 2005 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 6515 lets a court cancel a notice of pendency in most actions other than foreclosure, partition, or dower on terms it finds just, if the moving party posts an undertaking and either adequate relief can be secured that way or the plaintiff fails to post a counter-undertaking.
Full Text of CPLR 6515
Text size
In any action other than a foreclosure action as defined in subdivision (b) of section 6516 of this article or for partition or dower, the court, upon motion of any person aggrieved and upon such notice as it may require, may direct any county clerk to cancel a notice of pendency, upon such terms as are just, whether or not the judgment demanded would affect specific real property, if the moving party shall give an undertaking in an amount to be fixed by the court, and if:
1. the court finds that adequate relief can be secured to the plaintiff by the giving of such an undertaking; or 2. in such action, the plaintiff fails to give an undertaking, in an amount to be fixed by the court, that the plaintiff will indemnify the moving party for the damages that he or she may incur if the notice is not cancelled.
Plain-English Summary
CPLR 6515 offers a way to clear a notice of pendency even when none of the defined grounds in section 6514 apply. It does not reach every case -- foreclosure actions covered by section 6516, partition actions, and dower actions are outside its scope -- but for other real-property litigation, an aggrieved person can move to cancel the notice on terms the court finds just, so long as the moving party posts an undertaking in an amount the court sets.
The court then has two paths to grant the motion. It can cancel the notice if it finds the undertaking alone gives the plaintiff adequate protection regardless of how the case comes out. Or, if the plaintiff is given the chance to post a counter-undertaking -- indemnifying the moving party against the damages the moving party may suffer if the notice is not cancelled -- and the plaintiff fails to do so, the court can cancel the notice on that ground instead.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does CPLR 6515 apply to foreclosure, partition, or dower actions?
No, it expressly excludes foreclosure actions as defined in section 6516, along with actions for partition or dower.
What must the moving party do to get a notice of pendency cancelled under section 6515?
Post an undertaking, in an amount the court fixes, as a condition of the cancellation.
Does the moving party need to show the underlying lawsuit lacks merit?
No, the statute does not require a merits showing -- cancellation can rest on the moving party's undertaking and, in some cases, the plaintiff's failure to post an indemnifying undertaking of their own.
What is the plaintiff's undertaking meant to protect against?
It indemnifies the moving party for damages the moving party may incur if the notice of pendency is not cancelled and remains in effect.
Does the property have to be the direct subject of the judgment for section 6515 to apply?
No, the section applies whether or not the judgment demanded would affect specific real property.
Advisory Committee Notes
This section is derived from CPA § 124 which was amended by the addition of subd 2 in 1957 upon recommendation of the Law Revision Commission. Laws 1957, c 876; NY Law Rev Comm’n Rep, Leg Doc 65(B) (1957); see also NY Law Rev Comm’n Rep 203–226 (1951); 2 NY Jud Conference Rep 121–26 (1957).
The provision of CPA § 124 for cancellation by the giving of security dates from the Code of Civil Procedure. Because the courts were reluctant to cancel notices in cases involving unique property, the last sentence of subd 1 of CPA § 124 was added in 1930. Laws 1930, c 287. The sentence, “read literally, adds nothing to the existing law.” 14 Carmody-Wait, Cyclopedia of New York Practice 80 (1954). Because it has apparently solved a problem of construction, however, it has been retained in the phrase, “whether or not the judgment demanded would affect specific real property.” See 63rd St. Theatres, Ltd. v Mansion Estates, Inc. 137 Misc 285, 243 NY Supp 204 (Sup Ct), affd without opinion, 230 App Div 827, 245 NY Supp 767 (1st Dept 1930); 2 NY Jud Conference Rep 121–22 (1957). But see NY Law Rev Comm’n Rep 218 (1951) (“it does not seem to have been notably effective” in preventing unfounded suits).
Attempts to amend CPA § 124 in 1951 (see NY Law Rev Comm’n Rep 203–226 (1951)), in 1952 (see 2 NY Jud Conference Rep 124 n 57 (1957)) and in 1957 (see id. at 121–26) have all centered around a need to provide security and protection to a defendant owner of realty, in analogy to the security required for provisional remedies. Opposition to the suggested amendments was apparently motivated by the consideration that substantial burdens could be placed upon meritorious claimants. Except for the successful recommendation (see NY Law Rev Comm’n Rep, Leg Doc 65(B) (1957)), each of the proposals permitted the court to cancel a notice of pendency upon the failure of the plaintiff to comply with an order directing him to provide security. The successful recommendation requires that such cancellation may be ordered upon the plaintiff’s failure only if the defendant provides an undertaking. The substance of that provision, contained in the first and third sentences of subd 2 of CPA § 124, has been incorporated into subparagraph 2 of this section. The second sentence of subd 2 CPA § 124 which permitted the court to consider affidavits in making its decision has been omitted as unnecessary. Cf. rule 2214(b). The fourth sentence of subd 2 which governed modifications in security and the last paragraph of the subd which governed actions for award of damages from the person who filed the undertaking are incorporated into general rules governing security. The second paragraph of subd 2 of CPA § 124 has been omitted as repetitive.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308; amd, L 1973, ch 1029; L 2005, ch 387, § 1, eff Aug 2, 2005.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:CPLR 6515 undertaking cancel lis pendensbond to cancel notice of pendency NYNew York lis pendens undertaking cancellation