In re the Estate of Hayes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Hayes

69 A.D.3d 625, 891 N.Y.2d 285

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.3d 625 (In re the Estate of Hayes) 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 Hayes, 69 A.D.3d 625, 891 N.Y.2d 285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

The objectant established his entitlement to judgment as a [626]*626matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]), by demonstrating that the executors’ petition asserting, inter alia, that certain funds withdrawn by the objectant from certain bank accounts are assets of the decedent’s estate, was interposed after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [3]; Matter of King, 305 AD2d 683 [2003]; Matter of Neshewat, 237 AD2d 524, 525 [1997]; see also Matter of O’Brien, 54 AD2d 880 [1976]). Since, in opposition, the executors failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Surrogate’s Court properly granted the objectant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition as time-barred (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324). Prudenti, P.J., Covello, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

The objectant established his entitlement to judgment as a [626]*626matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]), by demonstrating that the executors’ petition asserting, inter alia, that certain funds withdrawn by the objectant from certain bank accounts are assets of the decedent’s estate, was interposed after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations (see CPLR 214 [3]; Matter of King, 305 AD2d 683 [2003]; Matter of Neshewat, 237 AD2d 524, 525 [1997]; see also Matter of O’Brien, 54 AD2d 880 [1976]). Since, in opposition, the executors failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Surrogate’s Court properly granted the objectant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition as time-barred (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324). Prudenti, P.J., Covello, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 625, 891 N.Y.2d 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-hayes-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack