In re the Estate of Hayes

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

Opinion

The objectant established his entitlement to judgment as a [626] matter 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68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]), by demonstrating that the executors’ petition asserting, inter alia, that certain funds withdrawn by the objectant from certain bank accounts are assets of the decedent’s estate, was interposed after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations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

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

69 A.D.3d 625 (In re the Estate of Hayes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
In re the Estate of O'Brien
54 A.D.2d 880 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re Neshewat
237 A.D.2d 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Estate of King
305 A.D.2d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)