Skolnick v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Skolnick v. Goldberg

291 A.D.2d 274, 737 N.Y.S.2d 601, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1590

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 274 (Skolnick v. Goldberg) 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

Skolnick v. Goldberg, 291 A.D.2d 274, 737 N.Y.S.2d 601, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered November 28, 2000, which insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted [275]*275defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action for indemnification, plaintiff seeks to hold defendant’s decedent individually liable for commencing and maintaining an action against him alleging, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation on plaintiffs part in connection with a purchase and sale agreement, dated April 25, 1990, between plaintiff and Nathaniel Colby, of whose person and property defendant’s decedent was appointed guardian in 1993, and of whose estate defendant’s decedent was appointed executrix following Colby’s death in 1995. Since defendant’s decedent could only have brought and maintained the complained of action in her representative capacity, and not in her individual capacity, she cannot be held personally liable for any costs connected with the action. Nor did bringing the action constitute a "wrong” for which defendant’s decedent could be held personally accountable, since she was responsible as executrix to collect any collectible estate assets (see, EPTL 11-4.1; Hone v De Peyster, 106 NY 645). Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered November 28, 2000, which insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted [275]*275defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action for indemnification, plaintiff seeks to hold defendant’s decedent individually liable for commencing and maintaining an action against him alleging, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation on plaintiffs part in connection with a purchase and sale agreement, dated April 25, 1990, between plaintiff and Nathaniel Colby, of whose person and property defendant’s decedent was appointed guardian in 1993, and of whose estate defendant’s decedent was appointed executrix following Colby’s death in 1995. Since defendant’s decedent could only have brought and maintained the complained of action in her representative capacity, and not in her individual capacity, she cannot be held personally liable for any costs connected with the action. Nor did bringing the action constitute a "wrong” for which defendant’s decedent could be held personally accountable, since she was responsible as executrix to collect any collectible estate assets (see, EPTL 11-4.1; Hone v De Peyster, 106 NY 645). Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 274, 737 N.Y.S.2d 601, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skolnick-v-goldberg-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack