In re Estate of Maxwell

13 A.D.3d 630, 786 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15718
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 27, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 630 (In re Estate of Maxwell) 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 Maxwell, 13 A.D.3d 630, 786 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In a probate proceeding, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated December 16, 2003, as denied those branches of her petition which were to vacate her default in contesting the probate of the decedent’s will and for leave to serve late objections to the probate of the will, to suspend and/or revoke the letters of administration C.T.A. issued Marguerite Quinn, and to disqualify Marguerite Quinn as the administrator C.T.A. of the estate of Charles C. Maxwell, also known as Charles Maxwell.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to the respondent by the appellant personally.

To vacate her default in contesting the probate of the decedent’s will, the petitioner was required to show “(1) a valid excuse and the absence of willfulness, and (2) a meritorious claim which is not established by allegations in conclusory form” (Matter of Wang, 5 AD3d 785, 787 [2004]; see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Boyce, 158 AD2d 422, 423 [1990]). The petitioner failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her default. Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly declined to vacate the default.

The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that suspending and/or revoking the letters of administration C.T.A., or disqualifying the administrator C.T.A., was warranted (see SCPA 711 [2], [3], [7]). Therefore, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied those branches of the petition. Santucci, J.P, S. Miller, Cozier and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Follman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026
Matter of Igleburger
2025 NY Slip Op 50241(U) (New York Surrogate's Court, 2025)
In re Rizzuto
66 A.D.3d 1033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Estate of Esposito
57 A.D.3d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Estate of Esteves
31 A.D.3d 1028 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 A.D.3d 630, 786 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-maxwell-nyappdiv-2004.