Schoelles v. Zausmer
| Decision Date | 03 December 1956 |
| Citation | 2 A.D.2d 979,157 N.Y.S.2d 190 |
| Parties | El Rena L. SCHOELLES, appellant, v. Nathan ZAUSMER and Bertha L. Uhlendorf, respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Louis Cohen, Jamaica, David S. Hill, Jr., Glen Cove, on the brief, for appellant.
Jack Korshin, Mineola, for respondent.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and BELDOCK, MURPHY, UGHETTA and HALLINAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for money loaned to respondents, the appeal is from an order granting a motion under section 190-a of the Civil Practice Act to remove said action to the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without costs.
It appears from the complaint that respondents are also executors of a decedent's estate. The amended answer alleges that the loans were made under an agreement that the estate would be liable for payment thereof and that the estate has made payment to the appellant. It further appears that two other proceedings involving the same parties are pending in said Surrogate's Court and for that reason the issues raised in this action might be heard conveniently in the Surrogate's Court. However, the transactions here in suit are those of living persons, there being no allegation or claim of any transaction with the decedent. The Surrogate's Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate actions at law for recovery of common debts or to enforce ordinary contract obligations. Surrogate's Ct. Act, § 40; Matter of Thomas' Estate, 235 App.Div. 450, 257 N.Y.S. 330; Matter of Noel, 246 App.Div. 740, 283 N.Y.S. 876; Lesser v. Ringelheim, 1 A.D.2d 843, 148 N.Y.S.2d 708, leave to appeal denied 1 A.D.2d 905, 150 N.Y.S.2d 920; Matter of Trevor's Estate, 309 N.Y. 389, 131 N.E.2d 561.
BELDOCK, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum:
Although the original action at law could not be commenced in the Surrogate's Court, that does not mean that the Supreme Court law action could not be transferred for trial to the Surrogate's Court in a proper case pursuant to section 190-a of the Civil Practice Act. (5 Warren's Heaton on Surrogates' Courts, § 473.) The majority admits that the issues raised in this action may be conveniently adjudicated in the Surrogate's Court. In my opinion, the order granting the transfer was a proper exercise of discretion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vanderbilt Museum v. American Ass'n of Museums
...not one that affects the estate of a decedent (see e.g., Matter of Estate of Jemzura, 65 A.D.2d 656, 409 N.Y.S.2d 445; Schoelles v. Zausmer, 2 A.D.2d 979, 157 N.Y.S.2d 190). The power of the Surrogate's Court relates to matters affecting estates of decedents and not to independent matters i......
-
Lainez, Matter of
...(Matter of Simonson, 271 App.Div. 420, 65 N.Y.S.2d 620; Matter of Heinze, 179 App.Div. 453, 165 N.Y.S. 1017; see Schoelles v. Zausmer, 2 A.D.2d 979, 157 N.Y.S.2d 190). The only proper parties before the Surrogate on an accounting are creditors or those claiming to be creditors of the decede......
-
Batterman's Will, In re
...Court Act, § 40; Matter of Trevor, 309 N.Y. 389, 131 N.E.2d 561; Matter of Thomas, 235 App.Div. 450, 257 N.Y.S. 330; Schoelles v. Zausmer, 2 A.D.2d 979, 157 N.Y.S.2d 190; Matter of Simonson, 271 App.Div. 420, 65 N.Y.S.2d 620; Matter of Buck, 203 Misc. 1046, 120 N.Y.S.2d 429; 1 Warren's Heat......
-
Lainez, Matter of
...matter as it is a dispute between two living parties. The surety's position is that the facts are similar to those in Schoelles v. Zausmer, 2 A.D.2d 979, 157 N.Y.S.2d 190, where the transfer of a suit from Supreme Court to the Surrogate's Court for moneys loaned was sought on the grounds th......