In re the Estate of Pierce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Pierce

106 A.D.2d 892, 483 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21802

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 14, 1984·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The Onondaga County Commissioner of Social Services contends that the preferred creditor status granted by subdivision 1 of section 104 of the Social Services Law and SCPA 1811 (subd 2, par [a]) mandates that the county’s lien filed against the deceased debtor’s estate is superior to the respondent Crouse-Irving Hospital’s judgments, which were docketed during decedent’s lifetime. We disagree. Subdivision 1 of section 104 of the Social Services Law grants to the Social Service agency a preference over the “general creditors” of a recipient of public assistance (Matter of Warren, 53 NY2d 118, 122) but that preference is subservient to a creditor with a prior specific lien (Matter of Lambert, 87 AD2d 818). We conclude that the respondent’s docketed judgments constitute prior specific liens. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Surrogate’s Court, Reagan, S. —judicial settlement.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ. [122 Misc 2d 908.]

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The Onondaga County Commissioner of Social Services contends that the preferred creditor status granted by subdivision 1 of section 104 of the Social Services Law and SCPA 1811 (subd 2, par [a]) mandates that the county’s lien filed against the deceased debtor’s estate is superior to the respondent Crouse-Irving Hospital’s judgments, which were docketed during decedent’s lifetime. We disagree. Subdivision 1 of section 104 of the Social Services Law grants to the Social Service agency a preference over the “general creditors” of a recipient of public assistance (Matter of Warren, 53 NY2d 118, 122) but that preference is subservient to a creditor with a prior specific lien (Matter of Lambert, 87 AD2d 818). We conclude that the respondent’s docketed judgments constitute prior specific liens. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Surrogate’s Court, Reagan, S. —judicial settlement.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ. [122 Misc 2d 908.]

In re the Estate of Pierce, 106 A.D.2d 892, 483 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

106 A.D.2d 892 (In re the Estate of Pierce) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related