Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Alu
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 18, 2003PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 1809 to disallow a claim filed by Victoriana Alu, the appeal is from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated December 6, 2001, which granted the petition.
Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.
Quantum meruit recovery “rests on a narrow exception to the rule that a party may not expect compensation for a benefit conferred gratuitously upon another” (Moors v Hall, 143 AD2d 336, 337 [1988] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Trott v Dean Witter & Co., 438 F Supp 842, 844 [1977], affd…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Moors v. HallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- In re WilsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Trott v. Dean Witter & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1977
3Cited by12 opinions
- Ross v. DeLorenzoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Tesser v. Allboro Equipment Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Atlas Refrigeration-Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Lo PintoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Miranco Contracting, Inc. v. PerelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Marc Contracting, Inc. v. 39 Winfield Associates, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.