Mizrahi v. ITT Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mizrahi v. ITT Corp.

178 A.D.2d 349

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

DecidedDecember 24, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 349 (Mizrahi v. ITT Corp.) 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

Mizrahi v. ITT Corp., 178 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered December 26, 1990, denying petitioner’s motion to reargue the August 7, 1990 decision of the same court, denying his motion to compel respondent to re-register a stock certificate, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner was never appointed administrator, fiduciary or other legal representative of the conservatee. Rather, he was only directed by the IAS court, in a prior order, to marshal the conservatee’s assets, which does not amount to appointment as a fiduciary (see, EPTL 1-2.7, 11-1.1 [b]). While the Supreme Court has jurisdiction concurrent with the Surrogate’s Court, that jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly in the absence of special circumstances (Matter of Moody, 6 AD2d 861). There are no special circumstances in this case, and it was not an abuse of the IAS court’s discretion to leave to the Surrogate the appointment of a legal representative for the conservatee’s estate.

The unpublished decision and order of this Court entered herein on December 17, 1991, is hereby recalled and vacated. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered December 26, 1990, denying petitioner’s motion to reargue the August 7, 1990 decision of the same court, denying his motion to compel respondent to re-register a stock certificate, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner was never appointed administrator, fiduciary or other legal representative of the conservatee. Rather, he was only directed by the IAS court, in a prior order, to marshal the conservatee’s assets, which does not amount to appointment as a fiduciary (see, EPTL 1-2.7, 11-1.1 [b]). While the Supreme Court has jurisdiction concurrent with the Surrogate’s Court, that jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly in the absence of special circumstances (Matter of Moody, 6 AD2d 861). There are no special circumstances in this case, and it was not an abuse of the IAS court’s discretion to leave to the Surrogate the appointment of a legal representative for the conservatee’s estate.

The unpublished decision and order of this Court entered herein on December 17, 1991, is hereby recalled and vacated. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mizrahi-v-itt-corp-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack