In re Harden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Harden

249 A.D. 762, 291 N.Y.S. 994, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5901

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 762 (In re Harden) 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 Harden, 249 A.D. 762, 291 N.Y.S. 994, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings county, dismissing appellant’s claim against the estate of Patrick J. Harden, and directing the turnover of certain property. Decree reversed on the law and the facts, with costs to the appellant, payable out of the estate, and the matter remitted to the surrogate for further hearing. We think the determination of the surrogate upon the evidence before him was proper. In our opinion, however, he should not have closed the hearings without affording the claimant further opportunity to obtain the attendance of the daughter of the decedent as a witness. She is interested in the estate and appears by attorney. Her attorney states that he is unable to procure her attendance for examination as a witness, and cannot give an address where she can be served with process. The surrogate should exercise his power to compel the attendance of the witness. He may penalize her interest in the estate. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings county, dismissing appellant’s claim against the estate of Patrick J. Harden, and directing the turnover of certain property. Decree reversed on the law and the facts, with costs to the appellant, payable out of the estate, and the matter remitted to the surrogate for further hearing. We think the determination of the surrogate upon the evidence before him was proper. In our opinion, however, he should not have closed the hearings without affording the claimant further opportunity to obtain the attendance of the daughter of the decedent as a witness. She is interested in the estate and appears by attorney. Her attorney states that he is unable to procure her attendance for examination as a witness, and cannot give an address where she can be served with process. The surrogate should exercise his power to compel the attendance of the witness. He may penalize her interest in the estate. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 762, 291 N.Y.S. 994, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-harden-nyappdiv-1936.