It is notable that the Court of Appeals in Piccione (supra) cited with approval Matter of Young (80 Misc 2d 937, 939), which had relied upon a practice commentary to the effect that " 'for the Surrogate’s Court to decline jurisdiction, it should be abundantly clear that the matter in controversy in no way affects the affairs of a decedent or the administration of his estate’ ”. That commentary, in its revised version (25 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 149:63), now cites "the recognized policy of the judicial system of New York that litigation involving the property and funds of a decedent’s estate should be disposed of in the Surrogate’s Court were the Surrogate’s Court has jurisdiction to afford complete relief and where the Surrogate’s Court consents to accept the matter.” To the same effect is Matter of Raymond v Davis (248 NY 67, 72).
The motivation of petitioner in transferring the case is not germane. The issues to be determined by the Surrogate, concerning the possession of the premises and the rent due and owing thereon, plainly involve the estate and its assets, indeed its sole assets. Such determination was clearly within the Surrogate’s discretion.