Grosso v. Estate of Gershenson

33 A.D.3d 587, 822 N.Y.S.2d 150
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 3, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 33 A.D.3d 587 (Grosso v. Estate of Gershenson) 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
Grosso v. Estate of Gershenson, 33 A.D.3d 587, 822 N.Y.S.2d 150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J), entered February 22, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (3) and (7) to dismiss the complaint and denied her cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff could not bring an action against the decedent’s estate since no executor or administrator had been appointed. “An estate is not a legal entity and any action for or against the estate must be by or against the executor or administrator in his or her representative capacity” (100 W 72nd St. Assoc, v Murphy, 144 Misc 2d 1036, 1040 [1989]). Since no executor or administrator had been appointed for the decedent’s estate, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the estate (see Jordan v City of New York, 23 AD3d 436 [2005]). Further, the defendant Deborah Radice could not be sued as executor of the estate since she had never been appointed executor.

The plaintiffs claim that there is a basis for in personam jurisdiction over the defendant Deborah Radice under the provisions of SCEA 210 (2) is without merit. SCEA 210 (2) is not applicable in this case because Radice did not receive or accept property paid or distributed from an estate (see Matter of Roy, 166 AD2d 146 [1991]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hegbeli v. Olanescu
2025 NY Slip Op 01770 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Al-Rowmeim v. Alazwear
2024 NY Slip Op 06020 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Board of Directors for Kings Oak Terrace Coop. Apts. Inc. v. Bersh
2024 NY Slip Op 51039(U) (NYC Civil Court, Kings, 2024)
200 Claremont Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. Estate of Lewis
2024 NY Slip Op 24051 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Dubois v. Beaury
N.D. New York, 2020
Wilmington Trust, Nat'l Ass'n v. Estate of McClendon
287 F. Supp. 3d 353 (S.D. Illinois, 2018)
Estate of Annie Williams v. Global Sq., Inc.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018
Visutton Associates v. Fastman
44 Misc. 3d 56 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Gaines
104 A.D.3d 885 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Deutsch v. Grunwald
63 A.D.3d 872 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 A.D.3d 587, 822 N.Y.S.2d 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grosso-v-estate-of-gershenson-nyappdiv-2006.