Estate of Kleefeld v. Poole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estate of Kleefeld v. Poole

93 A.D.2d 713, 467 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17540

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

DecidedApril 5, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 93 A.D.2d 713 (Estate of Kleefeld v. Poole) 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

Estate of Kleefeld v. Poole, 93 A.D.2d 713, 467 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Lambert, S.), entered August 4, 1982, which awarded letters of administration to petitioner-respondent Denise Stork and dismissed the appellant’s cross petition for such letters, affirmed, without costs. We agree with the Surrogate’s conclusion essentially for the reasons set forth in her careful and comprehensive opinion. Specifically we agree that appellant was not a distributee of the decedent’s estate under SCPA 1001 (subd 1, par ffl). Although the Surrogate indisputably had the discretionary power under SCPA 1001 (subd 4, par [a]) to grant letters of administration to the appellant in her capacity as executrix of the estate of her mother, who had died following the death of the decedent, and who would herself have had a prior right to letters of administration, the totality of factors set forth in the Surrogate’s opinion supports the determination not to exercise that discretion in favor of the appellant. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Asch, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Lambert, S.), entered August 4, 1982, which awarded letters of administration to petitioner-respondent Denise Stork and dismissed the appellant’s cross petition for such letters, affirmed, without costs. We agree with the Surrogate’s conclusion essentially for the reasons set forth in her careful and comprehensive opinion. Specifically we agree that appellant was not a distributee of the decedent’s estate under SCPA 1001 (subd 1, par ffl). Although the Surrogate indisputably had the discretionary power under SCPA 1001 (subd 4, par [a]) to grant letters of administration to the appellant in her capacity as executrix of the estate of her mother, who had died following the death of the decedent, and who would herself have had a prior right to letters of administration, the totality of factors set forth in the Surrogate’s opinion supports the determination not to exercise that discretion in favor of the appellant. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Asch, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.2d 713, 467 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-kleefeld-v-poole-nyappdiv-1983.