Rappaport v. Riordan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rappaport v. Riordan

66 A.D.3d 1018, 886 N.Y.S.2d 824

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 66 A.D.3d 1018 (Rappaport v. Riordan) 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

Rappaport v. Riordan, 66 A.D.3d 1018, 886 N.Y.S.2d 824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to “vacate” a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated November 15, 2005, which, after a trial, among other things, was in favor of Marguerite Downs Rappaport and against the estate of Alfred D. Rappaport in the principal sum of $65,000, based on a promissory note executed by the decedent in that amount, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered May 27, 2008, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A CPLR article 78 proceeding may not be used to seek review of issues that could have been raised on direct appeal (see CPLR 7801 [1]; cf. Matter of Wong v Chetta, 271 AD2d 451 [2000]; Matter of Tyler v Forma, 231 AD2d 891 [1996]; Matter of Sans v Doyle, 175 AD2d 670, 671 [1991]). Here, the petitioners failed to [1019]*1019appeal from the underlying decree and may not obtain collateral review of the issues which could have been raised on direct appeal from the decree (cf. Matter of Sans v Doyle, 175 AD2d 670 [1991]). Therefore, the proceeding was properly dismissed (cf. Matter of Wong v Chetta, 271 AD2d 451 [2000]).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Fisher, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to “vacate” a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated November 15, 2005, which, after a trial, among other things, was in favor of Marguerite Downs Rappaport and against the estate of Alfred D. Rappaport in the principal sum of $65,000, based on a promissory note executed by the decedent in that amount, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered May 27, 2008, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A CPLR article 78 proceeding may not be used to seek review of issues that could have been raised on direct appeal (see CPLR 7801 [1]; cf. Matter of Wong v Chetta, 271 AD2d 451 [2000]; Matter of Tyler v Forma, 231 AD2d 891 [1996]; Matter of Sans v Doyle, 175 AD2d 670, 671 [1991]). Here, the petitioners failed to [1019]*1019appeal from the underlying decree and may not obtain collateral review of the issues which could have been raised on direct appeal from the decree (cf. Matter of Sans v Doyle, 175 AD2d 670 [1991]). Therefore, the proceeding was properly dismissed (cf. Matter of Wong v Chetta, 271 AD2d 451 [2000]).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Fisher, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.3d 1018, 886 N.Y.S.2d 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rappaport-v-riordan-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack