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

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 106 A.D.2d 892 (In re the Estate of Pierce) 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 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

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.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 892, 483 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-pierce-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack