In re Gurell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Gurell

209 A.D.2d 358, 619 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11799

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 358 (In re Gurell) 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 Gurell, 209 A.D.2d 358, 619 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered July 19, 1993, which, inter alia, ratified and confirmed the report of the Referee settling the accounts of the executrix and temporary administrator, directed that the executrix be paid a $13,032 commission, directed that the sum of $36,000, less any fees previously remitted, be paid to the law firm of Glazer & Gottlieb, and directed that the balance of funds remaining in the hands of the executrix be paid to appellant as the sole residuary legatee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having adopted the findings of fact made by the Referee as its own, the Surrogate’s Court was not bound to make any [359]*359additional findings or conclusions (Matter of Woodward, 69 App Div 286, 291; Matter of Bettman, 65 App Div 229, 230). We find appellant’s remaining contentions to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered July 19, 1993, which, inter alia, ratified and confirmed the report of the Referee settling the accounts of the executrix and temporary administrator, directed that the executrix be paid a $13,032 commission, directed that the sum of $36,000, less any fees previously remitted, be paid to the law firm of Glazer & Gottlieb, and directed that the balance of funds remaining in the hands of the executrix be paid to appellant as the sole residuary legatee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having adopted the findings of fact made by the Referee as its own, the Surrogate’s Court was not bound to make any [359]*359additional findings or conclusions (Matter of Woodward, 69 App Div 286, 291; Matter of Bettman, 65 App Div 229, 230). We find appellant’s remaining contentions to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 358, 619 N.Y.S.2d 554, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gurell-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack