In re the Estate of Paterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Paterson

67 A.D.3d 494, 887 N.Y.S.2d 841

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.3d 494 (In re the Estate of Paterson) 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 Paterson, 67 A.D.3d 494, 887 N.Y.S.2d 841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered July 31, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, denied Sun Life’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The estate’s position on its attempt to void the annuity contract, which culminated in a settlement, did not judicially estop it from asserting its claim for the difference in the amount paid and the predecline value of decedent’s investment since, among other reasons, it did not prevail in the earlier portion of the action (see HGCD Retail Servs., LLC v 44-45 Broadway Realty Co., 37 AD3d 43, 48 [2006]). Nor was the claim barred by laches, since the estate was not guilty of undue delay and Sun Life’s ability to present a defense was not hampered as a result (see Continental Cas. Co. v Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, 60 AD3d 128, 137-138 [2008]; Delos Santos v 500 C.S. Realty Corp., 48 AD3d 217 [2008]). Although the Surrogate did not address the accrual of interest, any determination of that issue would have been premature.

We have considered appellant’s remaining contentions and [495]*495find them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, RJ., Andrias, Saxe, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered July 31, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, denied Sun Life’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The estate’s position on its attempt to void the annuity contract, which culminated in a settlement, did not judicially estop it from asserting its claim for the difference in the amount paid and the predecline value of decedent’s investment since, among other reasons, it did not prevail in the earlier portion of the action (see HGCD Retail Servs., LLC v 44-45 Broadway Realty Co., 37 AD3d 43, 48 [2006]). Nor was the claim barred by laches, since the estate was not guilty of undue delay and Sun Life’s ability to present a defense was not hampered as a result (see Continental Cas. Co. v Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, 60 AD3d 128, 137-138 [2008]; Delos Santos v 500 C.S. Realty Corp., 48 AD3d 217 [2008]). Although the Surrogate did not address the accrual of interest, any determination of that issue would have been premature.

We have considered appellant’s remaining contentions and [495]*495find them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, RJ., Andrias, Saxe, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 494, 887 N.Y.S.2d 841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-paterson-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack