Bachorik v. Allied Control Co.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1968 |
| Citation | 290 N.Y.S.2d 70,56 Misc.2d 982 |
| Parties | Edward BACHORIK, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED CONTROL COMPANY, Inc, Edward H. Gillette, Putnam Trust Company of Greenwich and Charles W. Pettengill, Co-Executors under the Will of Clarence L. Von Egloffstein, Deceased, and Myles V. Whalen, Jr., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Solomon M. Lowenbraun, New York City, for plaintiff.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, for defendants Putnam Trust etc. and Charles W. Pettengill, Co-Executors, etc.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for defendant Allied.
Shearman & Sterling, New York City, for defendant Whalen.
Meyer, Kissel, Matz & Seward, New York City, for defendant Gillette.
Motion by defendants Putnam Trust Company of Greenwich and Charles W. Pettengill, Co-Executors under the Will of Clarence L. Von Egloffstein, deceased, for an order to dismiss the complaint as against them, pursuant to Rule 3211(a)(1) and (5) CPLR, is granted.
Initially, upon the decedent's death, his will was duly admitted to probate by the Probate Judge of District of Greenwich, State of Connecticut. The moving defendants were duly qualified as Co-Executors to said Will and continue to act as such. Further, from the papers presently before the court, it is apparent that at all relevant times, the decedent was a resident domiciliary of Connecticut, and all of the assets of his estate are located there. Pursuant to the provisions of Connecticut General Statute, sec. 45--205, the Connecticut court entered an order on October 21, 1966, setting six months as the period under the aforesaid non-claim Connecticut statute within which all creditors of the estate were required to present and exhibit their claims. The moving defendants herein duly gave notice as provided by that order but plaintiff failed to make any claim. Thereafter, the Connecticut court duly entered a further order approving the list of creditors presented by the moving defendants. It does not include plaintiff, who had failed to make any timely claim.
The applicable statute, Connecticut General Statute, sec. 45--205, provides in relevant part: 'If any creditor fails to exhibit his claim within the time limited by such order, he shall be barred of his demand against such estate * * *.' The Connecticut non-claim statute is a key and integral part of the policy for the full orderly and prompt administration of decedents' estates in Connecticut which seeks to accomplish an aim beyond the normal general purpose of Statutes of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. United Missouri Bank, N.A.
...than a purely procedural statute of limitations and, therefore, is here controlling, strongly relying on Bachorik v. Allied Control Co., 56 Misc.2d 982, 983, 290 N.Y.S.2d 70, aff'd 31 A.D.2d 891, 299 N.Y.S.2d 100, and citing Southeast Bank, N.A. v. Lawrence, 66 N.Y.2d 910, 912, 498 N.Y.S.2d......
-
Boone Associates, L.P. v. Oaster
...statutes are applicable to the claim asserted herein (see, Matter of Redding, 177 Misc. 987, 32 N.Y.S.2d 626; Bachorik v. Allied Control Co., 56 Misc.2d 982, 290 N.Y.S.2d 70, affd. 31 A.D.2d 891, 299 N.Y.S.2d 100). Marine Midland Bank v. United Missouri Bank, 223 A.D.2d 119, 643 N.Y.S.2d 52......
-
Morrison Cohen Llp v. Schlass
...Krim & Ballon, 286 AD2d 703, 705 [2001], lv dismissed 97 NY2d 700 [2002]; Boone Assoc. v Oaster, 257 AD2d 370 [1999]; Bachorik v Allied Control Co., 56 Misc 2d 982 [1968], affd 31 AD2d 891 [1969], lv denied 25 NY2d 737 The imposition of costs on the motion was unwarranted since plaintiff's ......