Sims v. Manley

New York Court of Appeals

Sims v. Manley

508 N.E.2d 933, 69 N.Y.2d 912, 516 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 16356

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 508 N.E.2d 933 (Sims v. Manley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sims v. Manley, 508 N.E.2d 933, 69 N.Y.2d 912, 516 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 16356 (N.Y. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing the decision of the Appellate Division it is apparent that the Appellate Division substituted its discretion for that of the Surrogate’s Court’s in reversing that court’s discretionary order transferring to the Surrogate’s Court two summary proceedings pending in the Civil Court, New York County, and consolidating those proceedings with a discovery proceeding brought by petitioner as trustee under decedent’s will. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to this court and certified the following question: "Was the order of this Court, which reversed the order of the Surrogates Court, properly made?” Based on the record in this case, we cannot say that there was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law by the Appellate Division in substituting its discretion for that of Surrogate’s Court. Hence, the only remaining question certified is whether the Appellate Division had the power to grant the requested relief (see, Herrick v Second Cuthouse, 64 NY2d 692, 693). We conclude that it had this power, and pass on no other issue.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

[915]*915Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing the decision of the Appellate Division it is apparent that the Appellate Division substituted its discretion for that of the Surrogate’s Court’s in reversing that court’s discretionary order transferring to the Surrogate’s Court two summary proceedings pending in the Civil Court, New York County, and consolidating those proceedings with a discovery proceeding brought by petitioner as trustee under decedent’s will. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to this court and certified the following question: "Was the order of this Court, which reversed the order of the Surrogates Court, properly made?” Based on the record in this case, we cannot say that there was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law by the Appellate Division in substituting its discretion for that of Surrogate’s Court. Hence, the only remaining question certified is whether the Appellate Division had the power to grant the requested relief (see, Herrick v Second Cuthouse, 64 NY2d 692, 693). We conclude that it had this power, and pass on no other issue.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

[915]*915Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 N.E.2d 933, 69 N.Y.2d 912, 516 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 16356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-manley-ny-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack