In re Kuhlke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kuhlke

139 A.D.2d 514, 526 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3768

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

DecidedApril 4, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.2d 514 (In re Kuhlke) 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 Kuhlke, 139 A.D.2d 514, 526 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding to compel the executrix of the estate of the deceased John E. Kuhlke, to convey to the petitioner the estate’s one-half interest in certain real property, the executrix appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), entered January 6, 1987, as upon deeming her motion for a rehearing of the petitioner’s prior motion for summary judgment to be one for reargument and, upon granting reargument, adhered to an original determination in an order and decree dated May 29, 1986, granting summary judgment to the petitioner.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the estate.

The Surrogate was correct, upon reargument, in adhering to the original determination that the petitioner was entitled to summary judgment. The record reveals that the executrix failed to set forth evidentiary proof sufficient to support her defense to the petition (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065; Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to compel the executrix of the estate of the deceased John E. Kuhlke, to convey to the petitioner the estate’s one-half interest in certain real property, the executrix appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), entered January 6, 1987, as upon deeming her motion for a rehearing of the petitioner’s prior motion for summary judgment to be one for reargument and, upon granting reargument, adhered to an original determination in an order and decree dated May 29, 1986, granting summary judgment to the petitioner.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the estate.

The Surrogate was correct, upon reargument, in adhering to the original determination that the petitioner was entitled to summary judgment. The record reveals that the executrix failed to set forth evidentiary proof sufficient to support her defense to the petition (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065; Ehrlich v American Moninger Greenhouse Mfg. Corp., 26 NY2d 255). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 514, 526 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kuhlke-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack