Springer v. McGinn
This text of Springer v. McGinn (Springer v. McGinn) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Springer v McGinn
2026 NY Slip Op 03838
June 17, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Jane Springer, appellant,
v
Jacqueline McGinn, etc., respondent, et al., defendant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on June 17, 2026
2024-13017, (Index No. 619429/21)
Betsy Barros, J.P.
Helen Voutsinas
Lourdes M. Ventura
Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.
Falcon Rappaport & Berkman LLP, Rockville Centre, NY (Karen C. Davakis and Kyle R. Stefurak of counsel), for appellant.
McGiff Halverson Dooley, LLP, Patchogue, NY (Robert R. Dooley of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Joseph Farneti, J.), dated February 6, 2023. The order denied the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and (b) to dismiss the counterclaims and certain affirmative defenses of the defendant Jacqueline McGinn, denied the plaintiff's application for leave to amend the complaint, and granted the cross-motion of the defendant Jacqueline McGinn pursuant to CPLR 325(e) to remove the action to the Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the plaintiff's application for leave to amend the complaint is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from an order which does not determine a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701[a][2]), and we decline to grant leave to appeal (see id. § 5701[c]; Weissman v Weissman, 103 AD3d 886); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant Jacqueline McGinn.
In October 2021, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant Jacqueline McGinn (hereinafter the defendant), individually and as executrix of the estate of Robert Springer (hereinafter the decedent), and another defendant, asserting causes of action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and to impose a constructive trust. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendant received the proceeds of certain life insurance policies maintained by the decedent in violation of a divorce settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the decedent. The defendant joined issue and asserted counterclaims for declaratory and injunctive relief and affirmative defenses.
In March 2022, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and (b) to dismiss the defendant's counterclaims and certain affirmative defenses. The defendant thereafter cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 325(e) to remove the action to the Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County. In an order dated February 6, 2023, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the [*2]defendant's cross-motion. The plaintiff appeals.
"The Supreme Court and the Surrogate's Court have concurrent jurisdiction over the administration of a decedent's estate" (Rodriguez v Rodriguez, 229 AD3d 824, 826 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Goodwin v Rice, 79 AD3d 699, 700). "However, wherever possible, all litigation involving the property and funds of a decedent's estate should be disposed of in the Surrogate's Court" (Rodriguez v Rodriguez, 229 AD3d at 826 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Nichols v Kruger, 113 AD2d 878, 878-879). Since the present action involved the property and funds of the decedent's estate, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 325(e) to remove the action to the Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County (see Joffe v Widelitz, 134 AD3d 766, 767; Cipo v Van Blerkom, 28 AD3d 602, 602).
The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination.
BARROS, J.P., VOUTSINAS, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Springer v. McGinn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/springer-v-mcginn-nyappdiv-2026.