TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Estate of Crea

In the Matter of the Estate of James H. Crea, Catherine C. Cornelius, as Coexecutor of James H. Crea, Appellant James T. Crea, as Coexecutor of James H. Crea

In re the Estate of Crea, 33 A.D.2d 887 (1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 11, 1969
Citations
33 A.D.2d 887307 N.Y.S.2d 5211969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2646

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Decree, insofar as appealed from, unanimously modified on the law and facts in accordance with the memorandum herein, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Properly treating the indebtedness owed by respondent as representing money owed on a sale of goods the parties may show the terms of the oral agreement between respondent and testator relating to such indebtedness including price, terms of payment and dates for such payment, since complete delivery of the goods took the sale out of the statute. (Personal Property Law, § 85, subd. 1, par. [b]). Even though the terms of sale are uncertain at the time of delivery this does not render the contract unenforcible. (Thallon & Co. v. Edsil Trading Corp., 302 N. Y. 390 .) The later modification of the agreement between respondent and testator providing for repayment of the debt of respondent by payments of $75 per month, later raised to $90 per month for the rest of testator’s life, effectively terminated respondent’s obligation at the death of testator. An oral modification of a contract dealing with the sale of goods does not render the contract as modified subject to the statute even though the terms of payment and aggregate amount to be paid are changed. (Bronis v. Grafton Light & Power Co., 156 N. Y. S. 1106.) The fact that appellant as eoexeeutrix participated in administrative decisions with respect to the assets of the estate which contributed to the delay in paying her $20,000 legacy, does not affect her right to interest on the legacy from seven months after letters testamentary were issued (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 218). Any right to interest at 6% for unreasonable delay, which was subject to the discretion of the Surrogate (Matter of Hallock, 308 N. Y. 299 ), would be affected however by her own participation in such delay. Interest at 3% should be allowed appellant from March 15, 1964, seven months from August 15, 1963 when the letters were issued, to December 19, 1966, the date when the legacy was paid. i(Appeal from certain parts of decree of Erie County Surrogate’s Court dismissing objections to account.) Present — Del Yecehio, J. P., Marsh, Moule, Bastow and Henry, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1977: 219772026peak 1977 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Transammonia Export Corporation, Cross v. Conserv, Inc., Cross554 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1977)
  2. In re the Estate of Ackert91 Misc. 2d 276 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1977)

Most recent

  1. In re the Estate of Ackert91 Misc. 2d 276 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1977)
  2. Transammonia Export Corporation, Cross v. Conserv, Inc., Cross554 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1977)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Constr. of the Will of Hallock, 125 N.E.2d 578 (N.Y. 1955) 8
John Thallon & Co. v. Edsil Trading Corp., 98 N.E.2d 572 (N.Y. 1951) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list