In re Estate of Ancona

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Estate of Ancona

17 A.D.3d 584, 792 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4149

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

DecidedApril 18, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 584 (In re Estate of Ancona) 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

In re Estate of Ancona, 17 A.D.3d 584, 792 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a contested proceeding to vacate a decree dated April 2, 2001, admitting the decedent’s will to probate, Joseph Ancona and Mary Guadagno appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), entered June 13, 2003, which denied a motion by Raymond E. Krek to appear on their behalf pro hac vice as co-counsel to their attorney of record.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the petitioners personally.

The question of whether an out-of-state attorney should be admitted pro hac vice to participate in a particular matter is best left to the discretion of the trial court (see Neal v Ecolab, Inc., 252 AD2d 716 [1998]). Further, there were procedural defects in the motion for leave to appear pro hac vice (see 22 NYCRR 520.11 [d] [1]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a contested proceeding to vacate a decree dated April 2, 2001, admitting the decedent’s will to probate, Joseph Ancona and Mary Guadagno appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), entered June 13, 2003, which denied a motion by Raymond E. Krek to appear on their behalf pro hac vice as co-counsel to their attorney of record.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the petitioners personally.

The question of whether an out-of-state attorney should be admitted pro hac vice to participate in a particular matter is best left to the discretion of the trial court (see Neal v Ecolab, Inc., 252 AD2d 716 [1998]). Further, there were procedural defects in the motion for leave to appear pro hac vice (see 22 NYCRR 520.11 [d] [1]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 584, 792 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-ancona-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack