From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lazan v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 1995
213 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 6, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated August 16, 1993, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated November 24, 1993, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 24, 1993, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appellants filed a notice of claim and an amended notice of claim in the Surrogate's Court against the estate of Andrew T. Brooks, Sr., for $33,000,000. The claim was rejected by notice dated May 7, 1992, and was received by the appellants' attorney on May 11, 1992. The appellants did not commence the instant action in the Supreme Court, Queens County, until October 27, 1992. Accordingly, pursuant to SCPA 1810, this action is time-barred against the estate (see, e.g., Homemakers Inc. v Williams, 131 A.D.2d 636; Braloff v. Greenberg, 284 App. Div. 105 4). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lazan v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 1995
213 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Lazan v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW LAZAN et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants…

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

Date published: Mar 6, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
624 N.Y.S.2d 869

Citing Cases

Schnabel v. Huggins

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. With respect to that branch of her…

Huang v. the Estate of Harry C. Fotopoulos

The effect of a fiduciary's rejection of a claim is to require the claimant to commence an action in any…