In re the Est. of Casey, 145 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
In re the Est. of Casey, 145 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goodyear v. Young (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
With respect to the Young respondents, we conclude that the Surrogate properly determined that, because each of those respondents was in receipt of property interests conveyed by the estate, the Surrogate had personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to SCPA 210 (2) (b) (see Matter of Casey, 145 AD2d 632, 633 [1988]; Matter of Schreiter, 169 Misc 2d 706, 711 [Sur Ct, NY County 1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goodyear v. Young (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
With respect to the Young respondents, we conclude that the Surrogate properly determined that, because each of those respondents was in receipt of property interests conveyed by the estate, the Surrogate had personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to SCPA 210 (2) (b) (see Matter of Casey, 145 AD2d 632, 633 [1988]; Matter of Schreiter, 169 Misc 2d 706, 711 [Sur Ct, NY County 1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goodyear v. Young (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
With respect to the Young respondents, we conclude that the Surrogate properly determined that, because each of those respondents was in receipt of property interests conveyed by the estate, the Surrogate had personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to SCPA 210 (2) (b) (see Matter of Casey, 145 AD2d 632, 633 [1988]; Matter of Schreiter, 169 Misc 2d 706, 711 [Sur Ct, NY County 1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) HSBC Bank USA v. Desrouilleres
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
For that same reason, vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015 also is unavailable here (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Melish v Melish, 267 AD2d 218 [1999]; Starr Block Co. v Tedesco, 146 AD2d 692 [1989]; Matter of Casey, 145 AD2d 632, 632 [1988]; see also Matter of Coates v Lee, 32 AD3d 539 [2006]). *1016 As there was no basis to vacate Doresca’s default, the Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of her motion which was to stay the foreclosure sale in this action (see Getz v Stuyvesant Manor, 194 AD2d 589 [1993]; Shorehaven Assoc. v King, 184 AD2d 764 [1992]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Independence Savings Bank v. Freed
N.Y. City Civ. Ct. · 1992 · confidence medium
(Matter of Casey, supra, at 633.) These defendants had not deliberately invoked the benefits and protections of the laws of this State, nor has any evidence been presented that they actively solicited a distribution from the estate or engaged in any communications with the plaintiff.
discussed Cited "see" GOODYEAR, DANIEL M. v. YOUNG, FREDERICK J.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Although the Surrogate did not explicitly address whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Young respondents “ ‘offend[s] traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ ” (Rushaid v Pictet & Cie, 28 NY3d 316, 330-331 , rearg denied 28 NY3d 1161 ; see generally Casey, 145 AD2d at 633 ; Schreiter, 169 Misc 2d at 711 ), we conclude that it does not (see Rushaid, 28 NY3d at 331).
discussed Cited "see" In re the Estate of Roy
N.Y. Sur. Ct. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Matter of MacElroy ( 58 Misc 2d 93 ) which entails stocks and bonuses paid out as a part of the administration of the estate, Matter of Casey (supra) which was an action to recover funds erroneously paid to an out-of-State beneficiary, and Matter of Chodikoff ( 54 Misc 2d 785 ) involving continuing jurisdiction over a residuary beneficiary against whom contribution was sought for estate taxes and attorney’s fees.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Estate of Ambrose Casey, Francis X. McCormack, as of Ambrose Casey, Respondent Alice Bolte
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 29, 1988.
145 A.D.2d 632
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

— In a proceeding for the settlement of the voluntary account of Francis X. McCormack, as executor of the estate of Ambrose Casey, the respondent Alice Bolte, a beneficiary of the estate, appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), dated September 1, 1987, which denied her motion to dismiss that branch of the petition which sought a decree directing her to return to the petitioner funds which were allegedly distributed to her in error.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant individually.

Lead Opinion

The petitioner alleges that he erroneously distributed certain moneys from the decedent’s estate to the respondent as the sole legatee under the decedent’s will. The respondent, a[*633] nondomiciliary of New York, claims to have no nexus with the State beyond her passive receipt of the distributions and therefore contends that the court lacked a sufficient basis upon which to assert personal jurisdiction over her. We disagree.

By receiving and accepting the funds from an estate subject to the court’s jurisdiction which were mistakenly distributed to her as part of the administration of the decedent’s estate, the respondent effectively submitted to the jurisdiction of the Surrogate’s Court for the purpose of the instant proceeding to recover those moneys (see, SCPA 210 [2] [b]). Moreover, evidence indicating that the respondent, in addition to receiving and accepting such funds, engaged in substantial communications with the petitioner regarding the moneys and apparently actively solicited a distribution from the petitioner in order to facilitate a real estate transaction ensures that the exercise of jurisdiction herein does not offend due process, as the respondent affirmatively invoked the benefits and protections of the laws of this State and could reasonably anticipate being haled into court here (see generally, Burger King Corp. v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462; Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460).

We have considered the respondent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, SCPA 201 [3]; Matter of Rummer, 93 AD2d 135). Weinstein, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.