From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bloomingdale v. Bloomingdale, (Appeal No. 9.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 1939
258 App. Div. 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)

Opinion

December 18, 1939.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County, McCOOK, J.

Thomas B. Gilchrist of counsel [ Daniel E. Woodhull, Jr., with him on the brief; Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft, attorneys], for the appellant.

Max D. Steuer of counsel [ Sidney O. Friedman with him on the brief], for the plaintiffs-respondents.

Arthur T. O'Leary of counsel [ Royal F. Shepard and Theodore E. Wolcott with him on the brief], for Geanne Hughes Bloomingdale Butler, respondent.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., O'MALLEY, TOWNLEY, DORE and COHN, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for an order directing the removal of the trial of the issues raised by the complaint and cross-complaint to the Surrogate's Court of New York county granted. Settle order on notice.


The Supreme Court has the power and jurisdiction to hear and determine the rights of the parties in this entire controversy. In Matter of Malloy ( 278 N.Y. 429, at p. 432) the Court of Appeals said: "The Supreme Court is a court of general jurisdiction. It may take the account of a trustee, probate a will, and exercise jurisdiction in many other matters where the Surrogate's Court also has jurisdiction. The Legislature cannot by statute deprive it of one particle of its jurisdiction, derived from the Constitution (Art. VI), although it may grant concurrent jurisdiction to some other court, as it has done to the Surrogate's Court." However, we think that in view of the circumstances of this case and also in the interest of convenience and expedition, the litigation here should be disposed of in the forum where judicial action was first sought and obtained. ( Garlock v. Vandevort, 128 N.Y. 374, 379; Schuehle v. Reiman, 86 id. 270; Ludwig v. Bungart, 48 App. Div. 613, 616.)

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for an order directing the removal of the trial of the issues raised by the complaint and cross-complaint to the Surrogate's Court of New York county granted.


Summaries of

Bloomingdale v. Bloomingdale, (Appeal No. 9.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 1939
258 App. Div. 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)
Case details for

Bloomingdale v. Bloomingdale, (Appeal No. 9.)

Case Details

Full title:ROSALIE BANNER BLOOMINGDALE and DONALD BLOOMINGDALE, Respondents, v…

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

Date published: Dec 18, 1939

Citations

258 App. Div. 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)
16 N.Y.S.2d 359

Citing Cases

Sullivan v. Title Guarantee Trust Co.

Particularly to be noticed are id. § 257-a, giving the surrogate power of his own motion to order a trustee…

Matter of United States Trust Company of New York

" Nothing that was said in Bloomingdale v. Bloomingdale ( Appeal No. 9) ( 258 App. Div. 231) is inconsistent…