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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 16, 1988·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

137 A.D.2d 688 (In re the Estate of Friedgood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related