administrator claim in New York

2002To the extent that petitioners seek a declaration as to the validity of respondent Chief Administrator’s rule (22 NYCRR 127.2 [b], as amended, eff Apr. 16, 2001), allowing administrative review of trial court determinations as to the propriety of fee awards in excess of the limits prescribed in County Law § 722-b, the matter is not, in the first instance, properly before us (Donaldson v State of New York, 156 AD2d 290, 292 , lv denied 75 NY2d 1003 ).

2002To the extent that petitioners seek a declaration as to the validity of respondent Chief Administrator’s rule (22 NYCRR 127.2 [b], as amended, eff Apr. 16, 2001), allowing administrative review of trial court determinations as to the propriety of fee awards in excess of the limits prescribed in County Law § 722-b, the matter is not, in the first instance, properly before us (Donaldson v State of New York, 156 AD2d 290, 292 , lv denied 75 NY2d 1003 ).

1994Sav. & Loan Assn., 101 AD2d 1005 ; Mihaly v Mahoney, 126 AD2d 791 .) Absence of such service is fatal to the Administrator’s motion since defendant/ third-party plaintiff is the only party asserting any claim against the Administrator.

1994Sav. & Loan Assn., 101 AD2d 1005 ; Mihaly v Mahoney, 126 AD2d 791 .) Absence of such service is fatal to the Administrator’s motion since defendant/ third-party plaintiff is the only party asserting any claim against the Administrator.

1977When advised to sit down and rest before attempting the test again, petitioner responded, "Leave me alone, I’m not going to take any test.” Furthermore, petitioner never indicated to the administrator of the test that she was unable to complete it or that there was any physical reason preventing her from blowing air into the breathalyzer device (see e.g., Matter of Lindland v Tofany, 32 AD2d 947 ; Matter of Scott v Kelly, 5 AD2d 859 ).

1977When advised to sit down and rest before attempting the test again, petitioner responded, "Leave me alone, I’m not going to take any test.” Furthermore, petitioner never indicated to the administrator of the test that she was unable to complete it or that there was any physical reason preventing her from blowing air into the breathalyzer device (see e.g., Matter of Lindland v Tofany, 32 AD2d 947 ; Matter of Scott v Kelly, 5 AD2d 859 ).

1958Tkanica A. D. ( 263 App. Div. 155, 158 ) the court in a decision by Callahan, J., stated: “ A sovereign may waive his claim of immunity and subject himself to jurisdiction by a general appearance or by conduct on his part inconsistent with a special appearance.” In the instant case, the State of New York not only entered a general appearance, but it likewise presented its claim to the administrator and such claim was paid to it.

1955Here the apartment may not be decontrolled because it is exempt from control (cf. Matter of Fiesta Realty Corp. v. McGoldrick, 284 App. Div. 551, 557 , revd. on procedural grounds 308 N. Y. 869 ).

1955Here the apartment may not be decontrolled because it is exempt from control (cf. Matter of Fiesta Realty Corp. v. McGoldrick, 284 App. Div. 551, 557 , revd. on procedural grounds 308 N. Y. 869 ).

1900If disputed or rejected, they may be referred, and, if not, actions may be brought in the courts having jurisdiction.” And in Lambert v. Craft, supra, the court held: “If, therefore, after a reasonable opportunity for examination into the validity and fairness of a claim so presented, the executor does not offer to refer it on the ground that he doubts its justice, or disputes it as unjust, it acquires the character of a liquidated and undisputed claim against the estate;” that the allowance by an administrator of a claim presented against an estate “establishes prima facie the accuracy of the

1849S. 88.) Harvey v. Stillman, ( 22 Wend. 271 ,) relied on by the appellant’s counsel, has been overruled by Bullock v. Bogardus, ( 1 Denio, 276 ,) and Knapp v. Curtiss, ( 6 Hill, 386 .) If the creditor is at liberty to select the surrogate’s court as the forum for the trial of his claim against the estate, (and that question is not here presented for our decision,) he must abide by the same rule as to costs that would have governed if the suit were brought in a court of record.