In re the Estate of Lawrence

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Lawrence

42 Misc. 2d 56, 247 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1412

DecidedNovember 13, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 42 Misc. 2d 56 (In re the Estate of Lawrence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court 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 Lawrence, 42 Misc. 2d 56, 247 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1412 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Maximilian Moss, S.

In this proceeding petitioner administratrix seeks judicially to settle her account and a determination as to the priority of creditors of a distributee. The administratrix holds certain moneys which are conceded to be the distributee’s .share of the estate. Levies and attachments were filed with the ¡administratrix by the United States Government, the State of New York and a judgment creditor, each seeking to satisfy its claim out of the distributive share. The distributive share would not be sufficient to satisfy all claims and each has claimed a priority.

Where upon an accounting the share of a legatee is claimed under a writ of attachment and also under an assignment both of which are before the Surrogate, he is without jurisdiction to determine which! claimant is entitled to the legacy (Matter of Arkenburgh, 38 App. Div. 473; Matter of Redfield, 71 Hun 344). The priority among these claimants is not a matter relating to the affairs of the decedent but is purely a dispute between parties having no interest in the decedent’s estate. The court accordingly denies the request for direction.

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

Maximilian Moss, S.

In this proceeding petitioner administratrix seeks judicially to settle her account and a determination as to the priority of creditors of a distributee. The administratrix holds certain moneys which are conceded to be the distributee’s .share of the estate. Levies and attachments were filed with the ¡administratrix by the United States Government, the State of New York and a judgment creditor, each seeking to satisfy its claim out of the distributive share. The distributive share would not be sufficient to satisfy all claims and each has claimed a priority.

Where upon an accounting the share of a legatee is claimed under a writ of attachment and also under an assignment both of which are before the Surrogate, he is without jurisdiction to determine which! claimant is entitled to the legacy (Matter of Arkenburgh, 38 App. Div. 473; Matter of Redfield, 71 Hun 344). The priority among these claimants is not a matter relating to the affairs of the decedent but is purely a dispute between parties having no interest in the decedent’s estate. The court accordingly denies the request for direction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 Misc. 2d 56, 247 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-lawrence-nysurct-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack