In re the Accounting of Brooklyn Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Accounting of Brooklyn Trust Co.

275 A.D.2d 848

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

DecidedMay 16, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 848 (In re the Accounting of Brooklyn Trust Co.) 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 the Accounting of Brooklyn Trust Co., 275 A.D.2d 848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

The order did not affect any substantial right of the appellant. By the petition it was alleged that the parties sought to be struck out were absolutely or contingently interested in the estate. That allegation was admitted by the answer of appellant. The trial proceeded on the theory that there had been due service of the citation and that the nonresident alien parties were in default. Nothing in the papers shows that the appellant moved at any time during the trial to strike out the parties. The motion was made after the close of the trial, when the appellant had no right to ask for a ruling on a question of law. (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 71.) Moreover, it is uncontradicted that the motion made by the parties to be allowed to file an answer and reopen the trial was denied. No prejudice, therefore, resulted to the appellant from the order appealed from and it did not affect a substantial right. (Matter of Kelly [Langevin], 153 App. Div. 322; Matter of Soule, 46 Hun 661.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

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

The order did not affect any substantial right of the appellant. By the petition it was alleged that the parties sought to be struck out were absolutely or contingently interested in the estate. That allegation was admitted by the answer of appellant. The trial proceeded on the theory that there had been due service of the citation and that the nonresident alien parties were in default. Nothing in the papers shows that the appellant moved at any time during the trial to strike out the parties. The motion was made after the close of the trial, when the appellant had no right to ask for a ruling on a question of law. (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 71.) Moreover, it is uncontradicted that the motion made by the parties to be allowed to file an answer and reopen the trial was denied. No prejudice, therefore, resulted to the appellant from the order appealed from and it did not affect a substantial right. (Matter of Kelly [Langevin], 153 App. Div. 322; Matter of Soule, 46 Hun 661.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-accounting-of-brooklyn-trust-co-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack