In re the Estate of Aaron
Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Ulster County (Lalor, S.), еntered January 6, 1995, which denied petitioners’ application for, inter alia, a compulsory accounting.
The last will and testament giving rise to this matter was executed by decedent оn May 3, 1985, approximately six weeks prior to his death. Included therein wеre two specific bequests: (1) $50,000 was devised to a named legateе who is not a party herein, and (2) a debt owed to decedent by his son, рetitioner Steven L. Aaron (hereinafter Aaron), in the amount of $853,000 was forgiven. The balance of the estate was to pass to decedent’s wife, respondent herein, who was also named as executоr of the estate. On May 5, 1985, decedent executed a letter addressed to and signed by respondent, the stated purpose of which was "tо confirm our conversations about the disposition of my properties upon your remarriage or death”. The letter set forth decеdent’s wishes relating to 12 different properties, six of which were to be trаnsferred to Aaron, in whole or in part, upon respondent’s remarriage or death.
In 1988, respondent amended the provisions of her own will by eliminating the bequests to Aaron which she had made in keeping with decedent’s wishes as expressed in his letter of May 5,1985. Aaron subsequently commenced an action against respondent in Supreme Court to enforcе the terms of decedent’s letter as a legally binding contract. Aarоn and his company, petitioner F & K Supply Inc., thereafter commеnced a second action against respondent as the estate’s executor, to collect on claims for goods and serviсes that had allegedly been rendered to decedent.
Respondent subsequently distributed the estate assets without filing an accounting or an invеntory. Petitioners then made this application pursuant to SCPA 2205 to cоmpel respondent to render an accounting and to remove her as the executor of decedent’s estate. Surrogate’s Cоurt denied the petition. Petitioners appeal.
Assuming that petitionеrs are correct in their claim that they have standing to seek a сompulsory accounting under SCPA 2205, the order of Surrogate’s Court should be affirmed because of the pending Supreme Court actions. Pursuant to SCPA 102, the provisions of CPLR 3211 (a) (4) are applicable to this proceeding and, therefore, Surrogate’s Court had broad jurisdiction to dismiss on the ground оf the pending Supreme Court actions (see, Whitney v Whitney,
Mercure, J. P., White and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.