Gaffney v. Giangrande

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gaffney v. Giangrande

180 A.D.2d 421

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 4, 1992·Published

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County (Lee L. Holzman, S.), entered December 21, 1990, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner’s proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 for inquiry of respondent co-executrix, but allowed petitioner to file objections to respondent’s account, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the Surrogate that petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of any " 'specific personal property or money which belongs to the estate’ ” (Matter of Pokrass, 105 AD2d 659, 660), and therefore do not disturb his exercise of discretion in denying petitioner’s application for inquiry of respondent. Significantly, petitioner has not been precluded from asserting objections to the respondent’s account.

Petitioner has failed to preserve for review his remaining claims alleging lack of compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 207.37 (a) and challenging a prior directive made in open court by the Surrogate on June 26, 1989 (Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh, 141 AD2d 272, 276). In any event, the claim of lack of compliance with the court rule is conclusory, and any appeal from the June 1989 directive is time-barred. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County (Lee L. Holzman, S.), entered December 21, 1990, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner’s proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 for inquiry of respondent co-executrix, but allowed petitioner to file objections to respondent’s account, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the Surrogate that petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of any " 'specific personal property or money which belongs to the estate’ ” (Matter of Pokrass, 105 AD2d 659, 660), and therefore do not disturb his exercise of discretion in denying petitioner’s application for inquiry of respondent. Significantly, petitioner has not been precluded from asserting objections to the respondent’s account.

Petitioner has failed to preserve for review his remaining claims alleging lack of compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 207.37 (a) and challenging a prior directive made in open court by the Surrogate on June 26, 1989 (Recovery Consultants v Shih-Hsieh, 141 AD2d 272, 276). In any event, the claim of lack of compliance with the court rule is conclusory, and any appeal from the June 1989 directive is time-barred. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Gaffney v. Giangrande, 180 A.D.2d 421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

180 A.D.2d 421 (Gaffney v. Giangrande) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related