From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Goldrich v. Central Trust Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1987
128 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

March 9, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the petitioners-appellants and the respondent-appellant appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Since the application for arbitration involved the property of a decedent's estate, the Supreme Court correctly transferred the proceeding to the Surrogate's Court (see, Nichols v. Kruger, 113 A.D.2d 878; Peekskill Community Hosp. v. Sayres, 88 A.D.2d 657; Hollander v. Hollander, 42 A.D.2d 701). In addition, the application for arbitration involved questions previously considered in a pending proceeding in the Surrogate's Court and it was thus appropriate for the Supreme Court to decline to review them (see, Matter of Dondi v. Jones, 40 N.Y.2d 8; Echevarria v. Harrison, 59 A.D.2d 665). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Goldrich v. Central Trust Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1987
128 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Matter of Goldrich v. Central Trust Company

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LAWRENCE J. GOLDRICH et al., Appellants, v. CENTRAL TRUST…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 9, 1987

Citations

128 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

In Matter of Heitner

74] is an appropriate amount. "`[W]henever possible, all litigation involving the property and funds of a…

Doviak v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court did not err in declining to submit to the jury the…