Matter of Lowe

132 A.D.3d 675, 17 N.Y.S.3d 302
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 7, 2015
Docket2013-08683
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 675 (Matter of Lowe) 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
Matter of Lowe, 132 A.D.3d 675, 17 N.Y.S.3d 302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

In a probate proceeding in which the executor of the estate of Edwin S. Lowe petitioned for the judicial settlement of its final account, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, Jr., S.), dated June 28, 2013, which denied its motion for summary judgment, inter alia, dismissing certain objections to the subject account and declaring that a certain “owners’ agreement” is binding and enforceable and, in effect, searched the record and declared that the “owners’ agreement” was not enforceable, and the objectant Gail Lowe Maidman cross-appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, as Gail Lowe Maidman is not aggrieved by the order appealed from (see CPLR 5511; Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144, 156-157 [2010]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, in effect, searched the record and declared that a certain “owners’ agreement” is unenforceable; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Inasmuch as there are questions of fact as to the enforceability of the subject “owners’ agreement,” the Surrogate’s Court erred in, in effect, searching the record and declaring that the “owners’ agreement” was unenforceable (see Matter of Frankel, 123 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2014]). The court correctly, however, denied the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, inter alia, dismissing certain objections, as there are triable issues of fact as to those objections (see Matter of Frankel, 123 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2014]).

Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of de Suze v. Linden Plaza Preserv.
135 A.D.3d 936 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D.3d 675, 17 N.Y.S.3d 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-lowe-nyappdiv-2015.