"[T]he history of the Surrogate’s Court during the twentieth century is one of steadily expanding jurisdiction [citations omitted].” (Matter of Piccione, 57 NY2d 278, 287.) While there is no question that the transferred proceedings are cognizable in the Surrogate’s Court (NY Const, art VI, § 12; SCPA 201, 202), we reject the notion that the Court of Appeals intended that the Surrogate’s Court assume jurisdiction in every landlord-tenant case involving an estate, no matter how tenuous the connection. Thus, we believe that it was an improvident exercise of discretion to transfer the two garden-variety summary proceedings at issue to that court. As the estate made eminently clear in its moving papers, its primary motivation in seeking transfer of the nonpayment proceeding was to avoid the registration rule contained in Rules of the Civil Court of the City of New York § 2900.21 (e) (2). Rather than proceed in the Civil Court, the estate sought transfer in the hope of obtaining a more favorable result. This is not an appropriate consideration in determining whether a case should be transferred from one forum to another. Finally, we believe that the Housing Court is the more appropriate forum for resolution of the "Housing Part” proceeding. Concur— Sandler, J. P., Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.
Fein and Kassal, JJ.,
dissent in a memorandum by Fein, J., as follows: I would affirm the order of the Surrogate granting petitioner’s motion to transfer the summary proceedings pending in the Civil Court, New York County, to the Surrogate’s Court, and to consolidate said proceedings with a proceeding for the discovery of assets pending in the Surrogate’s Court.