Murray v. Medina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murray v. Medina

306 A.D.2d 452, 761 N.Y.S.2d 526

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

DecidedJune 23, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 452 (Murray v. Medina) 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

Murray v. Medina, 306 A.D.2d 452, 761 N.Y.S.2d 526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring that a renunciation and deed pertaining to certain real property devised in a will are null and void and to impose a constructive trust on the property, which was transferred to the Surrogate’s Court, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), dated November 9, 2001, as denied their cross motion for leave to enter judgment upon the failure of the defendants Kathryn B. Medina and Christine Beshar to answer, and granted the motion of those defendants to dismiss the complaint on the [453]*453ground that the action was time-barred, and (2) a resettled order of the same court, dated November 13, 2001.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 9, 2001, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the resettled order; and it is further,

Ordered that the resettled order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents, payable by the plaintiffs personally.

The Surrogate properly dismissed the complaint as time-barred because the plaintiffs had sufficient notice of the subject repudiation more than six years before they commenced this action (see Matter of Barabash, 31 NY2d 76 [1972]; Matter of Behr, 191 AD2d 431 [1993]; Matter of Mathewson, 264 App Div 939 [1942]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring that a renunciation and deed pertaining to certain real property devised in a will are null and void and to impose a constructive trust on the property, which was transferred to the Surrogate’s Court, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), dated November 9, 2001, as denied their cross motion for leave to enter judgment upon the failure of the defendants Kathryn B. Medina and Christine Beshar to answer, and granted the motion of those defendants to dismiss the complaint on the [453]*453ground that the action was time-barred, and (2) a resettled order of the same court, dated November 13, 2001.