Neustein v. Estate of Neustein (In re Neustein)
| Decision Date | 11 July 2012 |
| Citation | 97 A.D.3d 684,948 N.Y.S.2d 644,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05532 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Abraham NEUSTEIN, deceased. (Matter No. 1) Amy Neustein, respondent-appellant, v. Estate of Abraham Neustein, et al., appellants-respondents. (Matter No. 2). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
97 A.D.3d 684
948 N.Y.S.2d 644
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05532
In the Matter of Abraham NEUSTEIN, deceased. (Matter No. 1)
Amy Neustein, respondent-appellant,
v.
Estate of Abraham Neustein, et al., appellants-respondents. (Matter No. 2).
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
July 11, 2012.
Goldberg & Rimberg, PLLC (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Scott T. Horn and Naomi M. Taub], of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
Julia P. Heit, New York, N.Y. (Michael P. Heit of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
[97 A.D.3d 684]In a probate proceeding and a related action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to real property, to recover damages, and for ejectment, wrongful eviction, and injunctive relief, which was transferred from the Supreme Court, Kings County, to the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, and joined with the probate proceeding for disposition, the appeal is from so much of a judgment of the Surrogate's Court, Kings County (Johnson, S.), dated March 1, 2011, as, upon a decision of the same court dated September 13, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of Amy Neustein and against Joshua Neustein in the sum of $774,300, and Amy Neustein cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same judgment as awarded her damages in the sum of only $774,300.
ORDERED that the appeals by the Estate of Abraham Neustein [97 A.D.3d 685]and Frima Burger are dismissed, as those parties are not aggrieved by the judgment appealed from ( seeCPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from by Joshua Neustein and insofar as cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
“In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and we may render a judgment we
find warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that in a close case, the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” ( Marini v. Lombardo, 79 A.D.3d 932, 933, 912 N.Y.S.2d 693;see Campbell v. Campbell, 50 A.D.3d 614, 854 N.Y.S.2d 543).
Contrary to the contentions of Joshua Neustein, a defendant in Matter No. 2 (hereinafter Joshua), the Surrogate properly awarded damages to the plaintiff in that matter (hereinafter the plaintiff) for the value of the rent of the subject real property while the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Estate of Jewett
...dismissed 21 N.Y.3d 1037, 972 N.Y.S.2d 532, 995 N.E.2d 847 [2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 860, 2014 WL 223727 [2014] ; Matter of Neustein, 97 A.D.3d 684, 685, 948 N.Y.S.2d 644 [2012], lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 858, 2013 WL 452388 [2013] ).At the outset, we note that, as highlighted by Nilan's many......
-
City of N.Y. v. Anton
...fees, $ 11,900.00 in unpaid winter permit fees, and $ 11,811.13 in unpaid electrical usage charges (see RPAPL 601 ; Matter of Neustein , 97 A.D.3d 684, 685, 948 N.Y.S.2d 644 ).In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. They did not identify a single uninsured, un......
-
Williams v. Williams
...to the Surrogate's Court, Queens County ( see, e.g., In re Guarraci, 100 A.D.3d 633, 953 N.Y.S.2d 284 [2nd Dept.2012]; In re Neustein, 97 A.D.3d 684, 948 N.Y.S.2d 644 [2nd Dept.2012]; accord, Sitler v. Saratoga Associates Landscape Architects, 101 A.D.3d 1451, 2012 WL 6621138, 2012 N.Y. Sli......
- In re Mott