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.
Joan Thorne Manning, etc., respondent, v. Pamela Thorne, et al., defendants, Isa Muhammad, appellant.
Argued-April 20, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action for the partition and sale of real property, the defendant Isa Muhammad appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated December 8, 2008, which granted the plaintiff's motion for the sale of the subject property and the division of the proceeds thereof, and directed the parties to consent to the sale of the subject property to a prospective buyer or, if they failed to consent, to the partition and public sale of the subject property.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“[T]he Supreme Court and the Surrogate's Court have concurrent jurisdiction over the administration of a decedent's estate” (Gaentner v. Benkovich, 18 AD3d 424, 427). “[A]s a general rule, ‘in courts of concurrent jurisdiction of a particular subject matter the court first assuming jurisdiction should retain the action’ ” (id., quoting Zeglen v. Zeglen, 150 A.D.2d 924, 925). Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court acted properly in deciding the appellant's motion instead of transferring it to the Surrogate's Court (see McGirr v. Keesler, 273 App.Div. 778; Brandt v. Stowe, 20 Misc.2d 856, 858; see also Ruiz v. Ruiz, 262 A.D.2d 392). Moreover, the appellant never moved to transfer the action to the Surrogate's Court (see CPLR 325[e]; Gaentner v. Benkovich, 18 AD3d at 428).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff's motion was supported by one having personal knowledge of the relevant facts regarding the appellant's eviction from the subject property (see Comptroller of the State of N.Y. v Gards Realty Corp., 68 A.D.2d 186, 188-188; see also Parametric Capital Mgt., LLC v Lacher, 33 AD3d 376; Davidowitz v. Dixie Assoc., 59 A.D.2d 659).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., MILLER, DICKERSON and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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: 2009-05745 (Index No. 10192 /08)
Decided: May 25, 2010
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)