Lee v. Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lee v. Lee

248 A.D.2d 619, 669 N.Y.S.2d 927

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 619 (Lee v. Lee) 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

Lee v. Lee, 248 A.D.2d 619, 669 N.Y.S.2d 927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In two matters, inter alia, to set aside inter vivos trusts and other transfers of assets, Carol A. Corbett appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Putnam County (Braatz, S.), dated November 18, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the respondents’ separate motions, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), to dismiss Matter No. 2 which had been commenced in the Supreme Court, Putnam County, and transferred to the Surrogate’s Court, Putnam County, by order dated March 15, 1996.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision [620]*620thereof granting the motions to dismiss Matter No. 2 and substituting therefor a provision denying the motions; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As the Surrogate’s Court has not yet determined whether Matter No. 1 was timely commenced and may ultimately find it to be time-barred, the appellant may not be able to obtain full relief in Matter No. 1. Accordingly, Matter No. 2 is reinstated pending determination of the timeliness of the petition in Matter No. 1.

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In two matters, inter alia, to set aside inter vivos trusts and other transfers of assets, Carol A. Corbett appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Putnam County (Braatz, S.), dated November 18, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the respondents’ separate motions, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), to dismiss Matter No. 2 which had been commenced in the Supreme Court, Putnam County, and transferred to the Surrogate’s Court, Putnam County, by order dated March 15, 1996.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision [620]*620thereof granting the motions to dismiss Matter No. 2 and substituting therefor a provision denying the motions; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As the Surrogate’s Court has not yet determined whether Matter No. 1 was timely commenced and may ultimately find it to be time-barred, the appellant may not be able to obtain full relief in Matter No. 1. Accordingly, Matter No. 2 is reinstated pending determination of the timeliness of the petition in Matter No. 1.

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 619, 669 N.Y.S.2d 927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-lee-nyappdiv-1998.