Hoffman v. Sitkoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffman v. Sitkoff

297 A.D.2d 205, 745 N.Y.2d 539, 745 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7782

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

DecidedAugust 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 205 (Hoffman v. Sitkoff) 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

Hoffman v. Sitkoff, 297 A.D.2d 205, 745 N.Y.2d 539, 745 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The parties dispute the enforceability of a 1988 letter agreement in which the decedent, Henry Leir, and his wife expressed their understanding that neither of them would, without the written consent of the other, revoke or amend their reciprocal wills, dated November 13,1987, as amended by the first codicils thereto. The Surrogate’s Court does not generally have jurisdiction over the enforceability of a contract. Where though, as here, the agreement in question is inextricably connected with a contested will so that the dispute will necessarily affect the administration of the estate, removal of the action to Surrogate’s Court is appropriate since the Surrogate’s Court has full general jurisdiction in law and in equity with respect to all matters relating to the estates and affairs of decedents (see, SCPA 201 [3]; see also, Benjamin v Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 173 AD2d 373, 374). It is appropriate to note in this connection, that although CPLR 325 (e) “does not contain mandatory language,” this section “expresses a preference for removal to Surrogate’s Court of all matters affecting the administration of a decedent’s estate” (Carmel v Shor, 250 AD2d 475, 476). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

The parties dispute the enforceability of a 1988 letter agreement in which the decedent, Henry Leir, and his wife expressed their understanding that neither of them would, without the written consent of the other, revoke or amend their reciprocal wills, dated November 13,1987, as amended by the first codicils thereto. The Surrogate’s Court does not generally have jurisdiction over the enforceability of a contract. Where though, as here, the agreement in question is inextricably connected with a contested will so that the dispute will necessarily affect the administration of the estate, removal of the action to Surrogate’s Court is appropriate since the Surrogate’s Court has full general jurisdiction in law and in equity with respect to all matters relating to the estates and affairs of decedents (see, SCPA 201 [3]; see also, Benjamin v Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 173 AD2d 373, 374). It is appropriate to note in this connection, that although CPLR 325 (e) “does not contain mandatory language,” this section “expresses a preference for removal to Surrogate’s Court of all matters affecting the administration of a decedent’s estate” (Carmel v Shor, 250 AD2d 475, 476). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 205, 745 N.Y.2d 539, 745 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-sitkoff-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack