Cox v. Dougherty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cox v. Dougherty

120 A.D.2d 663, 502 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56766

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

DecidedMay 19, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.2d 663 (Cox v. Dougherty) 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

Cox v. Dougherty, 120 A.D.2d 663, 502 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In (1) a proceeding, inter alia, for an accounting and to rescind a contract for the sale of real property entered into by the former coexecutors of the deceased’s estate and (2) an action by the contract vendee against the former coexecutors for specific performance of the contract, the former coexecutors appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated March 31, 1986, as denied their motion to disqualify the Surrogate.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

During the conference in the Surrogate’s chambers on February 18, 1986, which was convened, inter alia, to fix trial dates and frame the relevant issues in the underlying litigation, the Surrogate made several remarks to counsel for the former coexecutors of the subject estate which triggered a motion by the former coexecutors to have the Surrogate disqualify himself, on the ground of bias, from hearing and determining the issues. The motion was denied.

We have examined the transcript of the conference held in the Surrogate’s chambers on February 18, 1986, and find that the Surrogate’s remarks do not rise to a level which would support the conclusion that the Surrogate was "so biased that his failure to disqualify himself was an abuse of discretion” (see, Matter of Smith, 84 AD2d 664, 666). Nevertheless, the Surrogate’s remarks were intemperate and unwarranted. If conduct of this nature continues, it may serve as the basis for the Surrogate’s disqualification in the future. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Niehoff, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In (1) a proceeding, inter alia, for an accounting and to rescind a contract for the sale of real property entered into by the former coexecutors of the deceased’s estate and (2) an action by the contract vendee against the former coexecutors for specific performance of the contract, the former coexecutors appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated March 31, 1986, as denied their motion to disqualify the Surrogate.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

During the conference in the Surrogate’s chambers on February 18, 1986, which was convened, inter alia, to fix trial dates and frame the relevant issues in the underlying litigation, the Surrogate made several remarks to counsel for the former coexecutors of the subject estate which triggered a motion by the former coexecutors to have the Surrogate disqualify himself, on the ground of bias, from hearing and determining the issues. The motion was denied.

We have examined the transcript of the conference held in the Surrogate’s chambers on February 18, 1986, and find that the Surrogate’s remarks do not rise to a level which would support the conclusion that the Surrogate was "so biased that his failure to disqualify himself was an abuse of discretion” (see, Matter of Smith, 84 AD2d 664, 666). Nevertheless, the Surrogate’s remarks were intemperate and unwarranted. If conduct of this nature continues, it may serve as the basis for the Surrogate’s disqualification in the future. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Niehoff, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 663, 502 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-dougherty-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack