Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
William Rafael RODRIGUEZ, etc., appellant, v. 21 HERKIMER MANAGEMENT, LLC, respondent, et al., defendants.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and to impose a constructive trust, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Richard Velasquez, J.), dated December 2, 2021. The order granted the motion of the defendant 21 Herkimer Management, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint for lack of capacity to sue, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, among other things, for leave to amend the complaint to add defendants.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action, as limited administrator of the estate of Rafael Rodriguez, Sr., inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and to impose a constructive trust on real property sold by his father, Rafael Rodriguez, Sr. (hereinafter the decedent), to the defendant 21 Herkimer Management, LLC (hereinafter the defendant). The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of capacity to sue. The plaintiff cross-moved, among other things, for leave to amend the complaint to add defendants. By order dated December 2, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion.
“Absent extraordinary circumstances which are not present here, a beneficiary has no authority to act on behalf of an estate or to exercise a fiduciary's rights with respect to estate property” (Levy v. Levy, 215 AD3d 742, 744). Here, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the plaintiff's limited letters of administration over the decedent's estate did not grant him the authority to commence this plenary action, and thus, the court properly directed dismissal of the complaint (see id.).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed from.
IANNACCI, J.P., MALTESE, VOUTSINAS and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2022–00235
Decided: July 31, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)