In re Reichbart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Reichbart

59 A.D.2d 868, 399 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14038

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 868 (In re Reichbart) 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 Reichbart, 59 A.D.2d 868, 399 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County, entered January 13, 1977, dismissing objections of appellant Evelyn Larack to the account of the administratrix C.T.A. in this estate and denying the motion to set aside the decree on accounting in this estate made on January 17, 1972, is unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Appellant, herself not a lawyer, has appeared pro se in this court and in the Surrogate’s Court. It is apparent that she is wholly unfamiliar with the limitations on the jurisdiction of this court and of the Surrogate’s Court of New York County, as well as with the binding effect of decrees of the Surrogate’s Court and the nature and strength of the showing that must be made to set aside such a decree. Nothing that appellant has adduced comes close to any legally cognizable basis for setting aside the decree of January 17, 1972. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Silverman, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County, entered January 13, 1977, dismissing objections of appellant Evelyn Larack to the account of the administratrix C.T.A. in this estate and denying the motion to set aside the decree on accounting in this estate made on January 17, 1972, is unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Appellant, herself not a lawyer, has appeared pro se in this court and in the Surrogate’s Court. It is apparent that she is wholly unfamiliar with the limitations on the jurisdiction of this court and of the Surrogate’s Court of New York County, as well as with the binding effect of decrees of the Surrogate’s Court and the nature and strength of the showing that must be made to set aside such a decree. Nothing that appellant has adduced comes close to any legally cognizable basis for setting aside the decree of January 17, 1972. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Silverman, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 868, 399 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-reichbart-nyappdiv-1977.