In re the Estate of Azumendi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Azumendi

259 A.D.2d 313, 684 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2411

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 313 (In re the Estate of Azumendi) 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 the Estate of Azumendi, 259 A.D.2d 313, 684 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about March 27, 1998, which, inter alia, adjudged that the decedent was a domiciliary of the State of New York at the time of her death, and orders, same court and Surrogate, entered January 7, 1998, August 21, 1997, June 16, 1997 and March 27, 1998, which, inter alia, denied motions to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and to renew a prior order authorizing appellant’s co-fiduciary to compromise the decedent’s wrongful death action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Surrogate’s Court obtained jurisdiction when the petition for ancillary letters, which was signed by appellant ancillary co-executor, was filed with the court, and letters were issued to appellant and the decedent’s husband in 1989. We note that [314]*314appellant never challenged jurisdiction until it became apparent that the distribution of the wrongful death proceeds would not be favorable to her. The decedent was properly adjudged a New York domiciliary at the time of her death upon a record showing, among other things, that she had continued to file income tax returns in the United States up until the year before her death, and that failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that she had abandoned her New York domicile for Spain. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about March 27, 1998, which, inter alia, adjudged that the decedent was a domiciliary of the State of New York at the time of her death, and orders, same court and Surrogate, entered January 7, 1998, August 21, 1997, June 16, 1997 and March 27, 1998, which, inter alia, denied motions to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and to renew a prior order authorizing appellant’s co-fiduciary to compromise the decedent’s wrongful death action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Surrogate’s Court obtained jurisdiction when the petition for ancillary letters, which was signed by appellant ancillary co-executor, was filed with the court, and letters were issued to appellant and the decedent’s husband in 1989. We note that [314]*314appellant never challenged jurisdiction until it became apparent that the distribution of the wrongful death proceeds would not be favorable to her. The decedent was properly adjudged a New York domiciliary at the time of her death upon a record showing, among other things, that she had continued to file income tax returns in the United States up until the year before her death, and that failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that she had abandoned her New York domicile for Spain. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 313, 684 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-azumendi-nyappdiv-1999.