In re the Estate of Burns
Opinion of the Court
The appellant is the ex-husband and a judgment creditor of Myra Springer, a specific devisee of certain real property under
The appellant contends that the Surrogate’s Court erred in treating the motion as one for reargument since it was untimely and that the appellant was prejudiced by the order.
"[Rjegardless of statutory time limits concerning motions to reargue, every court retains continuing jurisdiction to reconsider its prior interlocutory orders during the pendency of the action” (Liss v Trans Auto Sys., 68 NY2d 15, 20; Aridas v Caseria, 41 NY2d 1059, 1061). The Surrogate’s Court had the discretion to reconsider its prior order even though the time to make the motion to reargue had expired.
Moreover, upon granting reargument, the Surrogate’s Court correctly decided the merits since a creditor of a legatee is not a proper party to a proceeding to judicially settle an account (see, e.g., Matter of Lainez, 79 AD2d 78, affd 55 NY2d 657; Matter of Drew, 10 Misc 2d 1045).
The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.