In re the Estate of Friedgood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Friedgood

137 A.D.2d 688, 524 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1763

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 137 A.D.2d 688 (In re the Estate of Friedgood) 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 Friedgood, 137 A.D.2d 688, 524 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA article 18 to recover moneys due on a promissory note, the claimant Owen J. Amerling appeals from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated August 12, 1986, as, after a hearing, disallowed his claim.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

We find that the court properly held the subject claim to be barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 213 [2]). The cause of action accrued on August 9, 1978, the day after which the note became due (see, UCC 3-122 [1] [a]). Since the claimant failed to commence the instant proceeding on or before August 9, 1984, his claim was properly dismissed as untimely.

We have examined the claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Fiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA article 18 to recover moneys due on a promissory note, the claimant Owen J. Amerling appeals from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated August 12, 1986, as, after a hearing, disallowed his claim.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

We find that the court properly held the subject claim to be barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 213 [2]). The cause of action accrued on August 9, 1978, the day after which the note became due (see, UCC 3-122 [1] [a]). Since the claimant failed to commence the instant proceeding on or before August 9, 1984, his claim was properly dismissed as untimely.

We have examined the claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Fiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 688, 524 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-friedgood-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack