In re Forti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Forti

118 A.D.3d 478, 987 N.Y.S.2d 136

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

DecidedJune 10, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 478 (In re Forti) 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

In re Forti, 118 A.D.3d 478, 987 N.Y.S.2d 136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Nora S. Anderson, S.), entered on or about February 7, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, granted petitioner’s petition for letters of administration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court had jurisdiction pursuant to SCPA 206 (1) and [479]*479properly granted letters of administration to petitioner, pursuant to SCPA 2103, given the evidence that property of the nondomiciliary decedent may have been left in New York (see Matter of Obregon, 230 AD2d 47, 52 [1st Dept 1997], affd 91 NY2d 591 [1998]). This is so, even if the property was brought and left here by someone other than decedent and without decedent’s consent, so long as the property was not brought here through fraud and collusion merely for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction (see Matter of De Camillis, 66 Misc 2d 882, 893 [Sur Ct, NY County 1971], affd 38 AD2d 687 [1971]). Therefore, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the petition, as there was no evidence of forum shopping or bad faith by petitioner (see Matter of Nevai, 7 Misc 3d 188, 190 [Sur Ct, Westchester County 2005], affd 28 AD3d 561 [2d Dept 2006]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P, DeGrasse, Freedman and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Nora S. Anderson, S.), entered on or about February 7, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, granted petitioner’s petition for letters of administration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court had jurisdiction pursuant to SCPA 206 (1) and [479]*479properly granted letters of administration to petitioner, pursuant to SCPA 2103, given the evidence that property of the nondomiciliary decedent may have been left in New York (see Matter of Obregon, 230 AD2d 47, 52 [1st Dept 1997], affd 91 NY2d 591 [1998]). This is so, even if the property was brought and left here by someone other than decedent and without decedent’s consent, so long as the property was not brought here through fraud and collusion merely for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction (see Matter of De Camillis, 66 Misc 2d 882, 893 [Sur Ct, NY County 1971], affd 38 AD2d 687 [1971]). Therefore, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the petition, as there was no evidence of forum shopping or bad faith by petitioner (see Matter of Nevai, 7 Misc 3d 188, 190 [Sur Ct, Westchester County 2005], affd 28 AD3d 561 [2d Dept 2006]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P, DeGrasse, Freedman and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 478, 987 N.Y.S.2d 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-forti-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack