In re Holstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Holstein

38 A.D.3d 1333, 830 N.Y.S.2d 687

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 1333 (In re Holstein) 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 Holstein, 38 A.D.3d 1333, 830 N.Y.S.2d 687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Onondaga County (Peter N. Wells, S.), entered January 30, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from, dismissed in part the objections to the intermediate accounts filed by petitioners.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum:

Surrogate’s Court properly dismissed all but one of the objections to the intermediate accounts filed by petitioners, the trustees of the underlying marital trust. With the exception of the single objection that was sustained by the Surrogate, objectant failed to meet his burden of coming forward with evidence establishing that the accounts were inaccurate or incomplete (see Matter of Rudin, 34 AD3d 371, 372 [2006]; Matter of Curtis, 16 AD3d 725, 726-727 [2005]). Present—Scudder, EJ., Hurlbutt, Centra, Fahey and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Onondaga County (Peter N. Wells, S.), entered January 30, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from, dismissed in part the objections to the intermediate accounts filed by petitioners.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum:

Surrogate’s Court properly dismissed all but one of the objections to the intermediate accounts filed by petitioners, the trustees of the underlying marital trust. With the exception of the single objection that was sustained by the Surrogate, objectant failed to meet his burden of coming forward with evidence establishing that the accounts were inaccurate or incomplete (see Matter of Rudin, 34 AD3d 371, 372 [2006]; Matter of Curtis, 16 AD3d 725, 726-727 [2005]). Present—Scudder, EJ., Hurlbutt, Centra, Fahey and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 1333, 830 N.Y.S.2d 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-holstein-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack