In re Casey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Casey

221 A.D.2d 528, 634 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12029

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 20, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by William F. Hyland and Patrick J. Scinto, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emmanuelli, S.), dated October 13, 1993, and cross appeal by Margaret Patricia Looby and Suzanne Casey Bove from stated portions of the same decree.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated in the decision of Surrogate Emannuelli dated June 9, 1993. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by William F. Hyland and Patrick J. Scinto, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emmanuelli, S.), dated October 13, 1993, and cross appeal by Margaret Patricia Looby and Suzanne Casey Bove from stated portions of the same decree.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated in the decision of Surrogate Emannuelli dated June 9, 1993. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

In re Casey, 221 A.D.2d 528, 634 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

221 A.D.2d 528 (In re Casey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related