Smith v. John J. McManus & Sons, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. John J. McManus & Sons, Inc.

101 A.D.2d 890, 476 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18605

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

DecidedMay 29, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 101 A.D.2d 890 (Smith v. John J. McManus & Sons, Inc.) 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

Smith v. John J. McManus & Sons, Inc., 101 A.D.2d 890, 476 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the production of corporate financial records in accordance with petitioner’s common-law right of inspection, the appeal is from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), entered October 14,1983, which granted the application. H Decree affirmed, with costs. 11 Since this matter relates to the affairs of a decedent’s estate, the Surrogate’s Court is vested with subject matter jurisdiction by virtue of section 12 of article VI of the New York State Constitution (see Matter of Piccione, 57 NY2d 278; Matter of Maki v Estate ofZiehm, 55 AD2d 454; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912, 913; SCPA 102). H We note that appellants had the opportunity to contest the issue of proper purpose on an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Therefore, in the interests of judicial economy and consistency, we hold that they are estopped from doing so now (cf. Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350 [court may treat prior dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution as a bar to a subsequent appeal on issues that could have been presented on the earlier appeal]). 11 We have considered the other points raised by appellants and find that they do not warrant reversal. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the production of corporate financial records in accordance with petitioner’s common-law right of inspection, the appeal is from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), entered October 14,1983, which granted the application. H Decree affirmed, with costs. 11 Since this matter relates to the affairs of a decedent’s estate, the Surrogate’s Court is vested with subject matter jurisdiction by virtue of section 12 of article VI of the New York State Constitution (see Matter of Piccione, 57 NY2d 278; Matter of Maki v Estate ofZiehm, 55 AD2d 454; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912, 913; SCPA 102). H We note that appellants had the opportunity to contest the issue of proper purpose on an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Therefore, in the interests of judicial economy and consistency, we hold that they are estopped from doing so now (cf. Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350 [court may treat prior dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution as a bar to a subsequent appeal on issues that could have been presented on the earlier appeal]). 11 We have considered the other points raised by appellants and find that they do not warrant reversal. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 890, 476 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-john-j-mcmanus-sons-inc-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack