As the majority notes, the Court of Appeals, in Matter of Piccione (57 NY2d 278, 287), stated with approval that "the history of the Surrogate’s Court during the twentieth century is one of steadily expanding jurisdiction”. It is notable that in that case the Court of Appeals ruled that the Surrogate’s Court had jurisdiction in a proceeding to order commercial tenants to "vacate and surrender” premises owned by an estate, in order to facilitate the executors’ sale of the premises to a third party. The Court of Appeals ruled that since the proceeds of the sale would ultimately be distributed pursuant to the Surrogate’s orders, the proceeding affected the affairs of the decedent and the administration of the estate. It was held that the omission of the Surrogate’s Court as a forum for the disposition of summary proceedings in RPAPL 701 was of no consequence. As the Piccione court noted, a transfer such as the majority directs would result in "the fragmentation of the treatment of the affairs of a decedent’s estate” (57 NY2d, at pp 290-291).
As the majority concedes, jurisdiction in the Surrogate’s Court is conferred by NY Constitution, article VI, § 12 (d) and SCPA 201 and 202. The majority states that it rejects the conclusion that the Court of Appeals, in Piccione (supra), intended that the Surrogate’s Court assume jurisdiction in every landlord-tenant case involving an estate, no matter how tenuous the connection. We need not adopt that conclusion. It is sufficient to note that in Piccione the summary proceeding had been dismissed by the District Court because the notice of termination was found to be defective prior to the commencement of the Surrogate’s Court’s proceedings. This is not unlike our case.