Smith v. Varrial

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Varrial

99 A.D.2d 753, 471 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17117

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 753 (Smith v. Varrial) 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. Varrial, 99 A.D.2d 753, 471 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17117 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action by plaintiff, inter alia, to recover his distributive share of his mother’s estate, he appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burchell, J.), entered March 17, 1983, which granted defendants’ motion to change the venue of the action from Westchester County to Richmond County. Order reversed, with costs, and defendants’ motion to change venue denied. In this action by plaintiff pursuant to EPTL 11-1.5 to recover his distributive share of the decedent’s estate, in which he also seeks punitive damages, defendants urge that the proper tribunal and venue for the action is the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County, where decedent resided and where letters of administration were issued. Plaintiff, however, a Westchester County resident, properly elected to pursue his causes of action in the Supreme Court, Westchester County (CPLR 503, subd [a]; 5A Warren’s Heaton, Surrogate’s Courts, § 495, par 5; see, also, Matter ofPiccione, 57 NY2d 278; Beers v Strong, 128 App Div 20; Matter of Tierney, 177 Mise 1080). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action by plaintiff, inter alia, to recover his distributive share of his mother’s estate, he appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burchell, J.), entered March 17, 1983, which granted defendants’ motion to change the venue of the action from Westchester County to Richmond County. Order reversed, with costs, and defendants’ motion to change venue denied. In this action by plaintiff pursuant to EPTL 11-1.5 to recover his distributive share of the decedent’s estate, in which he also seeks punitive damages, defendants urge that the proper tribunal and venue for the action is the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County, where decedent resided and where letters of administration were issued. Plaintiff, however, a Westchester County resident, properly elected to pursue his causes of action in the Supreme Court, Westchester County (CPLR 503, subd [a]; 5A Warren’s Heaton, Surrogate’s Courts, § 495, par 5; see, also, Matter ofPiccione, 57 NY2d 278; Beers v Strong, 128 App Div 20; Matter of Tierney, 177 Mise 1080). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 753, 471 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-varrial-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack