In re the Estate of Hamilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Hamilton

234 A.D.2d 372, 651 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12911

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 9, 1996·Published

Opinion

—In a discovery proceeding, inter alia, to recover title to real property allegedly belonging to the estate of the decedent, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Nahman, S.), dated June 9, 1995, as denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition, granted the motion of the petitioner-executor for partial summary judgment, and directed the appellant to transfer and convey sole title and ownership of certain real property to her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to respondent.

The stipulation entered into between the appellant and his deceased wife clearly expressed the parties’ intention to terminate their tenancy by the entirety with respect to the subject premises, and transfer sole ownership of the property to the wife (see, General Obligations Law § 3-309; Matter of Violi, 65 NY2d 392). Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly directed the appellant to transfer and convey sole title and ownership of the property to the petitioner, the executor of the estate of the deceased wife (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a discovery proceeding, inter alia, to recover title to real property allegedly belonging to the estate of the decedent, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Nahman, S.), dated June 9, 1995, as denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition, granted the motion of the petitioner-executor for partial summary judgment, and directed the appellant to transfer and convey sole title and ownership of certain real property to her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to respondent.

The stipulation entered into between the appellant and his deceased wife clearly expressed the parties’ intention to terminate their tenancy by the entirety with respect to the subject premises, and transfer sole ownership of the property to the wife (see, General Obligations Law § 3-309; Matter of Violi, 65 NY2d 392). Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly directed the appellant to transfer and convey sole title and ownership of the property to the petitioner, the executor of the estate of the deceased wife (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

In re the Estate of Hamilton, 234 A.D.2d 372, 651 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

234 A.D.2d 372 (In re the Estate of Hamilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related