Sang Kim Nguyen v. Tran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sang Kim Nguyen v. Tran

126 A.D.3d 544, 2 N.Y.S.3d 901

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2015

Docket14525 1785/12

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 544 (Sang Kim Nguyen v. Tran) 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

Sang Kim Nguyen v. Tran, 126 A.D.3d 544, 2 N.Y.S.3d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Nora S. Anderson, S.), entered May 22, 2014, which denied objectant Margaret Tran’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Surrogate’s Court has broad discretionary authority to exercise its equity jurisdiction in fulfilling its responsibilities relating to the affairs of decedents, the probate of wills, and the administration of estates (see NY Const, art VI, § 12 [e]; Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518, 523 [1995]; Matter of Tarka, 41 AD3d 345 [1st Dept 2007]).

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting petitioner to present evidence supporting her claim that she was decedent’s surviving spouse, despite statements in her tax returns that she was “single,” in that marital status is a mixed question of law and fact (see Glenbriar Co. v Lipsman, 11 AD3d 352, 353 [1st Dept 2004], affd 5 NY3d 388 [2005]; Village Dev. Assoc. v Walker, 282 AD2d 369 [1st Dept 2001]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, ManzanetDaniels and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Nora S. Anderson, S.), entered May 22, 2014, which denied objectant Margaret Tran’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Surrogate’s Court has broad discretionary authority to exercise its equity jurisdiction in fulfilling its responsibilities relating to the affairs of decedents, the probate of wills, and the administration of estates (see NY Const, art VI, § 12 [e]; Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518, 523 [1995]; Matter of Tarka, 41 AD3d 345 [1st Dept 2007]).

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting petitioner to present evidence supporting her claim that she was decedent’s surviving spouse, despite statements in her tax returns that she was “single,” in that marital status is a mixed question of law and fact (see Glenbriar Co. v Lipsman, 11 AD3d 352, 353 [1st Dept 2004], affd 5 NY3d 388 [2005]; Village Dev. Assoc. v Walker, 282 AD2d 369 [1st Dept 2001]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, ManzanetDaniels and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 544, 2 N.Y.S.3d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sang-kim-nguyen-v-tran-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack