Opinion ID: 2074
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proceedings at the Appellate Level

Text: Plaintiff timely appealed. Although Mr. Guest was represented by counsel at the District Court, on appeal he appears pro se. At oral argument, the Court pointed out that an administr[ator] or execut[or] of an estate may not proceed pro se when the estate has beneficiaries or creditors other than the litigant. Pridgen, 113 F.3d at 393. Because Mr. Guest's wife, Ellen Guest, was also a beneficiary of Kristine's estate, we expressed doubt as to whether a suit by a pro se administrator was permitted under Pridgen. While decision was pending, however, Plaintiff filed a letter brief providing evidence that Mrs. Guest was disclaiming all interest in Kristine's estate, leaving Mr. Guest as the sole beneficiary. Subsequently, upon the Court's post-argument inquiry, he filed an additional brief stating that the estate had no creditors. On the merits, Plaintiff argues that the District Court erred in finding that Defendants owed Kristine no duty of care. Under New York law, Plaintiff claims, duty extends to foreseeable danger on a neighboring property when one creates or contributes to the danger existing on the neighboring property. Appellant's Br. 4. Given the interrelationship between events on campus and events on the lake, Plaintiff argues, a material question of fact was alleged as to whether the College did in fact create or contribute to the dangerous conditions on the lake.