From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ruiz v. Ruiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 1999
262 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued April 29, 1999

June 7, 1999

In an action, inter alia, to declare the rights of the parties in the assets of an estate, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered December 18, 1998, which denied their motion for partial summary judgment declaring that, at his death, the decedent was the sole owner of two corporations.

Migliore Infranco, P.C., Commack, N.Y. (Joseph O. Infranco and John F. Clennan of counsel), for appellants.

Levin Belsky Ross Daniels, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Michael Lowe of counsel), for respondents.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for partial summary judgment is granted.

It is well settled that the Supreme Court and the Surrogate's Court have concurrent jurisdiction over decedents' estates ( see, N Y Const art VI; Matter of Mizrahi, 178 A.D.2d 349; Burmax Co. v. B S Indus., 135 A.D.2d 599; McCoy v. Bankers Fed. Sav. Loan Assn., 131 A.D.2d 646). The Supreme Court ordinarily refrains from exercising its concurrent jurisdiction ( see, Matter of Mizrahi, supra; Weizenecker v. Weizenecker, 140 A.D.2d 517; Dunham v. Dunham, 40 A.D.2d 912). Here, however, since the issue presented to the Supreme Court was apparently never presented to the Surrogate's Court, the Supreme Court properly continued to exercise its jurisdiction ( see, EPTL § 5-1.1-A Est. Powers Trusts[c][4]; H G Operating Corp. v. Linden, 151 A.D.2d 898; Burmax Co. v. B S Indus., supra; Matter of Wallach, 130 A.D.2d 495).

Furthermore, the plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment declaring that the decedent was, at his death, the sole owner of the two corporations at issue, since the defendants failed to present any evidence to refute the plaintiffs' prima facie showing in this regard ( see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). Upon the resolution of the remaining causes of action, a judgment should be entered declaring that at the time of his death the decedent was the sole owner of the subject corporations.


Summaries of

Ruiz v. Ruiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 1999
262 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Ruiz v. Ruiz

Case Details

Full title:HELGA MERCEDES RUIZ, et al., appellants, v. MARGARITA TREJO "RUIZ", et…

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

Date published: Jun 7, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 749

Citing Cases

Van Bergen v. Lefferts-St. Marks Ave.

The Supreme Court and the Surrogate's Court have concurrent jurisdiction over matters which involve…

Rosvold v. Rosvold

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants. "While the Supreme Court and the Surrogate's…