From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murray v. Medina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 2003
306 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-10856, 2001-10859

Argued March 11, 2003.

June 23, 2003.

In an action for a judgment declaring that a renunciation and deed pertaining to certain real property devised in a will are null and void and to impose a constructive trust on the property, which was transferred to the Surrogate's Court, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), dated November 9, 2001, as denied their cross motion for leave to enter judgment upon the failure of the defendants Kathryn B. Medina and Christine Beshar to answer, and granted the motion of those defendants to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was time-barred, and (2) a resettled order of the same court, dated November 13, 2001.

McNulty-Spiess, Riverhead, N.Y. (James Spiess of counsel), for appellant Meredith Medina Murray, and Esseks, Hefter Angel, Riverhead, N.Y. (William W. Esseks and Anthony C. Pasca of counsel), for all other appellants (one brief filed).

Farrell Fritz, P.C., Uniondale, N.Y. (John J. Barnosky of counsel), for all respondents, and Debevoise Plimpton, New York, N.Y. (Robert N. Shwartz of counsel), for respondent Kathryn B. Medina (one brief filed).

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated November 9, 2001, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the resettled order; and it is further,

ORDERED that the resettled order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents, payable by the plaintiffs personally.

The Surrogate properly dismissed the complaint as time-barred because the plaintiffs had sufficient notice of the subject repudiation more than six years before they commenced this action (see Matter of Barabash, 31 N.Y.2d 76; Matter of Behr, 191 A.D.2d 431; Matter of Mathewson, 264 App. Div. 939).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, FEUERSTEIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Murray v. Medina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 2003
306 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Murray v. Medina

Case Details

Full title:MEREDITH MEDINA MURRAY, ET AL., appellants, v. KATHRYN B. MEDINA, ETC., ET…

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

Date published: Jun 23, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
761 N.Y.S.2d 526

Citing Cases

Campbell v. Bank of Am., N.A.

Thereafter, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to aver evidentiary facts establishing that the action was…