In re Khadr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Khadr

251 A.D.2d 666, 676 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7890

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

DecidedJune 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 666 (In re Khadr) 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 Khadr, 251 A.D.2d 666, 676 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to judicially settle the account of Mohamed Khadr, the executor of the will of the decedent Elsayed Khadr, the executor appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County (D’Arrigo, S.), dated July 10, 1997, which denied his motion for a protective order to preclude his oral examination by the respondent, Soheir Khadr, who is the decedent’s widow, a beneficiary under the will, and an object-ant to the accounting.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

The Surrogate did not improvidently exercise his discretion in denying the executor’s motion for a protective order. The matters about which the respondent seeks to examine the executor are relevant and material to this proceeding. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to judicially settle the account of Mohamed Khadr, the executor of the will of the decedent Elsayed Khadr, the executor appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County (D’Arrigo, S.), dated July 10, 1997, which denied his motion for a protective order to preclude his oral examination by the respondent, Soheir Khadr, who is the decedent’s widow, a beneficiary under the will, and an object-ant to the accounting.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

The Surrogate did not improvidently exercise his discretion in denying the executor’s motion for a protective order. The matters about which the respondent seeks to examine the executor are relevant and material to this proceeding. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 666, 676 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-khadr-nyappdiv-1998.