In re Isaacs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Isaacs

262 A.D. 774, 27 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5808

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

DecidedMay 26, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D. 774 (In re Isaacs) 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 Isaacs, 262 A.D. 774, 27 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, granting the respondent’s motion to examine the petitioner before trial in a proceeding to compel the respondent to account as executor, modified on the law and the facts by striking out items numbered 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, and by striking from the second ordering paragraph the words “ and also all correspondence, accounts, records and reports furnished to petitioner by Julius W. Baer with respect to his investigation of estate transactions any way relevant to the issues of the parties hereto.” As so modified the order, in so far as appealed from, is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant, payable by the respondent personally, the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. The burden of avoiding the release is upon the petitioner and, under the facts in this record, it was an improper exercise of discretion to grant an examination on the items struck out. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, granting the respondent’s motion to examine the petitioner before trial in a proceeding to compel the respondent to account as executor, modified on the law and the facts by striking out items numbered 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, and by striking from the second ordering paragraph the words “ and also all correspondence, accounts, records and reports furnished to petitioner by Julius W. Baer with respect to his investigation of estate transactions any way relevant to the issues of the parties hereto.” As so modified the order, in so far as appealed from, is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant, payable by the respondent personally, the examination to proceed on five days’ notice. The burden of avoiding the release is upon the petitioner and, under the facts in this record, it was an improper exercise of discretion to grant an examination on the items struck out. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 774, 27 N.Y.S.2d 838, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-isaacs-nyappdiv-1941.