O'Hayer v. De St. Aubin

24 A.D.2d 604, 262 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3594
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 12, 1965
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 604 (O'Hayer v. De St. Aubin) 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
O'Hayer v. De St. Aubin, 24 A.D.2d 604, 262 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

In an action by an income beneficiary and remainderman of a trust against the trustee: (a) to annul and set aside defendant’s sale to himself of stock which had been part of the trust principal; (b) to remove defendant as trustee and appoint another in his place; (e) to require defendant to account; and (d) for other equitable relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester Countv, [605]*605entered December 24, 1964, as denied his cross motion to dismiss each of the causes of action stated in the complaint on the ground that the Supreme Court cannot or should not exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter and that the court should relinquish its jurisdiction in favor of the Superior Court of Rhode Island. Such denial was “without prejudice to [an] appropriate application for joinder of additional parties”. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Defendant contends that the action should not be permitted to continue in the absence of certain contingent remaindermen who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. In our opinion, under the circumstances of this case the nonresident contingent remaindermen are not persons who should be joined pursuant to the statute (CPLR 1001, subd. [a]). Moreover, even if they were such persons, justice requires that the court permit the action to proceed in their absence (CPLR 1001, subd. [b]). (For opinion at Special Term, see 44 Misc 2d 786.) Beldoek, P. J., TJghetta, Christ, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Poling Transportation Corp. v. A & P Tanker Corp.
84 A.D.2d 796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Cohen v. Farber
65 A.D.2d 686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 A.D.2d 604, 262 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohayer-v-de-st-aubin-nyappdiv-1965.