In re the Estate of Casey

145 A.D.2d 632
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 29, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 145 A.D.2d 632 (In re the Estate of Casey) 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 Casey, 145 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

The petitioner alleges that he erroneously distributed certain moneys from the decedent’s estate to the respondent as the sole legatee under the decedent’s will. The respondent, a [633]*633nondomiciliary of New York, claims to have no nexus with the State beyond her passive receipt of the distributions and therefore contends that the court lacked a sufficient basis upon which to assert personal jurisdiction over her. We disagree.

By receiving and accepting the funds from an estate subject to the court’s jurisdiction which were mistakenly distributed to her as part of the administration of the decedent’s estate, the respondent effectively submitted to the jurisdiction of the Surrogate’s Court for the purpose of the instant proceeding to recover those moneys (see, SCPA 210 [2] [b]). Moreover, evidence indicating that the respondent, in addition to receiving and accepting such funds, engaged in substantial communications with the petitioner regarding the moneys and apparently actively solicited a distribution from the petitioner in order to facilitate a real estate transaction ensures that the exercise of jurisdiction herein does not offend due process, as the respondent affirmatively invoked the benefits and protections of the laws of this State and could reasonably anticipate being haled into court here (see generally, Burger King Corp. v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462; Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460).

We have considered the respondent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, SCPA 201 [3]; Matter of Rummer, 93 AD2d 135). Weinstein, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

GOODYEAR, DANIEL M. v. YOUNG, FREDERICK J.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Goodyear v. Young
149 A.D.3d 1601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
HSBC Bank USA v. Desrouilleres
128 A.D.3d 1013 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In re the Guardianship of A.A.C.
23 Misc. 3d 395 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2009)
Harrell v. Hayes
1998 NMCA 122 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1998)
In re the Estate of Schreiter
169 Misc. 2d 706 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1996)
Catauro v. Goldome Bank for Savings
189 A.D.2d 747 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Independence Savings Bank v. Freed
154 Misc. 2d 472 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1992)
First American Bank of Virginia v. Reilly
563 N.E.2d 142 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1990)
In re the Estate of Roy
147 Misc. 2d 292 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
145 A.D.2d 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-casey-nyappdiv-1988.