Beiny v. Wynyard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beiny v. Wynyard

133 A.D.2d 37, 518 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49572

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 20, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.2d 37 (Beiny v. Wynyard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beiny v. Wynyard, 133 A.D.2d 37, 518 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Marie Lambert, S.), entered March 9, 1987, which appointed a temporary receiver and directed the trustee to post a bond of $20 million, modified on the law and facts and in the exercise of discretion, to strike the bond requirement and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The bond is neither payable upon a stated contingency, nor posted to assure faithful execution by the trustee. (See, Siegel, NY Prac § 206; 2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 2501.04.) We find that the Surrogate’s Court erred when it directed the posting of the bond to protect "any future determination” by that court "of ownership of the Swiss assets.” Concur—Sandler, J. P., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Marie Lambert, S.), entered March 9, 1987, which appointed a temporary receiver and directed the trustee to post a bond of $20 million, modified on the law and facts and in the exercise of discretion, to strike the bond requirement and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The bond is neither payable upon a stated contingency, nor posted to assure faithful execution by the trustee. (See, Siegel, NY Prac § 206; 2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 2501.04.) We find that the Surrogate’s Court erred when it directed the posting of the bond to protect "any future determination” by that court "of ownership of the Swiss assets.” Concur—Sandler, J. P., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 37, 518 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beiny-v-wynyard-nyappdiv-1987.