Ganoe v. Lummis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ganoe v. Lummis

129 A.D.2d 1006, 514 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45704

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 3, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.2d 1006 (Ganoe v. Lummis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ganoe v. Lummis, 129 A.D.2d 1006, 514 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint upon various grounds under CPLR 3211. The court granted the motion stating that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. The complaint alleges fraud and negligence in the administration of the estate of Howard R. Hughes, Jr. Even if the court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this action, the complaint was properly dismissed since it fails to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs have not alleged that they are distributees of the estate or that they have any other interest therein. In fact, they unsuccessfully litigated that issue in the Texas courts [1007]*1007and exhausted their rights on appeal when the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari (Ganoe v Neff, — US —, 90 L Ed 2d 696). Lacking any interest in the estate, plaintiffs can claim neither damage nor breach of duty owing to them by reason of any fraud or negligence in its administration. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Easier, J.— summary judgment.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint upon various grounds under CPLR 3211. The court granted the motion stating that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. The complaint alleges fraud and negligence in the administration of the estate of Howard R. Hughes, Jr. Even if the court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this action, the complaint was properly dismissed since it fails to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs have not alleged that they are distributees of the estate or that they have any other interest therein. In fact, they unsuccessfully litigated that issue in the Texas courts [1007]*1007and exhausted their rights on appeal when the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari (Ganoe v Neff, — US —, 90 L Ed 2d 696). Lacking any interest in the estate, plaintiffs can claim neither damage nor breach of duty owing to them by reason of any fraud or negligence in its administration. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Easier, J.— summary judgment.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.2d 1006, 514 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ganoe-v-lummis-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack