Goldrich v. Central Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldrich v. Central Trust Co.

128 A.D.2d 615, 513 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44306

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 615 (Goldrich v. Central Trust Co.) 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

Goldrich v. Central Trust Co., 128 A.D.2d 615, 513 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to compel arbitration, the petitioners appeal and the respondent Saul I. Birnbaum separately appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), dated October 29, 1986, which, inter alia, transferred the proceeding to the Surrogate’s Court, Monroe County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the petitioners-appellants and the respondent-appellant appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

[616]*616Since the application for arbitration involved the property of a decedent’s estate, the Supreme Court correctly transferred the proceeding to the Surrogate’s Court (see, Nichols v Kruger, 113 AD2d 878; Peekskill Community Hosp. v Sayres, 88 AD2d 657; Hollander v Hollander, 42 AD2d 701). In addition, the application for arbitration involved questions previously considered in a pending proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court and it was thus appropriate for the Supreme Court to decline to review them (see, Matter of Dondi v Jones, 40 NY2d 8; Echevarria v Harrison,' 59 AD2d 665). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to compel arbitration, the petitioners appeal and the respondent Saul I. Birnbaum separately appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), dated October 29, 1986, which, inter alia, transferred the proceeding to the Surrogate’s Court, Monroe County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the petitioners-appellants and the respondent-appellant appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

[616]*616Since the application for arbitration involved the property of a decedent’s estate, the Supreme Court correctly transferred the proceeding to the Surrogate’s Court (see, Nichols v Kruger, 113 AD2d 878; Peekskill Community Hosp. v Sayres, 88 AD2d 657; Hollander v Hollander, 42 AD2d 701). In addition, the application for arbitration involved questions previously considered in a pending proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court and it was thus appropriate for the Supreme Court to decline to review them (see, Matter of Dondi v Jones, 40 NY2d 8; Echevarria v Harrison,' 59 AD2d 665). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 615, 513 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldrich-v-central-trust-co-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack