From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joffe v. Widelitz

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 9, 2015
134 A.D.3d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

12-09-2015

Sara Donna June JOFFE, et al., appellants, v. Susan WIDELITZ, et al., respondents.

Avery J. Gross, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellants. Barton, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Randall L. Rasey of counsel), for respondents.


Avery J. Gross, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellants.

Barton, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Randall L. Rasey of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an escrow agreement, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Fusco, J.), dated December 3, 2013, which granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 325(e) to remove this action to the Surrogate's Court, New York County.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court and the Surrogate's Court have concurrent jurisdiction over the administration of a decedent's estate (see Goodwin v. Rice, 79 A.D.3d 699, 699–700, 913 N.Y.S.2d 692; Cipo v. Van Blerkom, 28 A.D.3d 602, 813 N.Y.S.2d 532; Gaentner v. Benkovich, 18 A.D.3d 424, 428, 795 N.Y.S.2d 246). “However, ‘[w]herever possible, all litigation involving the property and funds of a decedent's estate should be disposed of in the Surrogate's Court’ ” (Cipo v. Van Blerkom, 28 A.D.3d at 602, 813 N.Y.S.2d 532, quoting Nichols v. Kruger, 113 A.D.2d 878, 878–879, 493 N.Y.S.2d 605; see Hollander v. Hollander, 42 A.D.2d 701, 345 N.Y.S.2d 592; cf. Gaentner v. Benkovich, 18 A.D.3d at 428, 795 N.Y.S.2d 246). In this action, the plaintiffs seek to recover funds of an estate. As such, determination of this action “affects the administration of a decedent's estate” (CPLR 325[e]; see Cipo v. Van Blerkom, 28 A.D.3d at 602, 813 N.Y.S.2d 532; Birnbaum v. Central Trust Co., 156 A.D.2d 309, 310, 549 N.Y.S.2d 9; Burmax Co. v. B & S Indus., 135 A.D.2d 599, 601–602, 522 N.Y.S.2d 177; Nichols v. Kruger, 113 A.D.2d 878, 493 N.Y.S.2d 605; Hollander v. Hollander, 42 A.D.2d at 701, 345 N.Y.S.2d 592). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly exercised its power under article VI, § 19(a) of the New York Constitution to grant the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 325(e) to remove this action to the Surrogate's Court, New York County (see Benjamin v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 173 A.D.2d 373, 374, 569 N.Y.S.2d 741; Peekskill Community Hosp. v. Sayres, 88 A.D.2d 657, 450 N.Y.S.2d 527).

MASTRO, J.P., DICKERSON, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Joffe v. Widelitz

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 9, 2015
134 A.D.3d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Joffe v. Widelitz

Case Details

Full title:Sara Donna June JOFFE, et al., appellants, v. Susan WIDELITZ, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 9, 2015

Citations

134 A.D.3d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
19 N.Y.S.3d 904
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9068

Citing Cases

Sorcigli v. Lombardo

The Supreme Court and the Surrogate's Court have concurrent jurisdiction over the administration of a…

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

"The Supreme Court and the Surrogate's Court have concurrent jurisdiction over the administration of a…