In re Hines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Hines

258 A.D. 1075, 18 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8956

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 1075 (In re Hines) 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 Hines, 258 A.D. 1075, 18 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

In a discovery proceeding, respondent appeals from a [1076]*1076decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk County, entered on the verdict of a jury, directing her to endorse and turn over to the estate of the decedent certain stock certificates. Decree reversed on the law and proceeding dismissed, with costs and disbursements to the appellant, payable out of the estate. The determination was not only against the weight of the evidence but contrary to it. The proof establishing a valid gift was in no way contradicted and it shows that the appellant has title to the property sought to be recovered by the executor. The respondent’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of the trial should have been granted. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In a discovery proceeding, respondent appeals from a [1076]*1076decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk County, entered on the verdict of a jury, directing her to endorse and turn over to the estate of the decedent certain stock certificates. Decree reversed on the law and proceeding dismissed, with costs and disbursements to the appellant, payable out of the estate. The determination was not only against the weight of the evidence but contrary to it. The proof establishing a valid gift was in no way contradicted and it shows that the appellant has title to the property sought to be recovered by the executor. The respondent’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of the trial should have been granted. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 1075, 18 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hines-nyappdiv-1940.