In re the Appointment of a Committee of the Person & Estate of Sementillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Appointment of a Committee of the Person & Estate of Sementillo

254 A.D. 639, 4 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6820

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 639 (In re the Appointment of a Committee of the Person & Estate of Sementillo) 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 Appointment of a Committee of the Person & Estate of Sementillo, 254 A.D. 639, 4 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

-Order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: As we read this record, the order sought to be vacated was entered upon the consent of the Veterans’ Administration. No sufficient reason is stated in the moving papers why the Veterans’ Administration should be relieved from the effect of this consent. Under the circumstances we conclude that the motion to vacate the former order was properly denied. We are not passing upon the question as to what effect the original order may have on the final accounting of the committee. All concur. (The order denies a motion to vacate an award of attorneys’ fees.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, J J.

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

-Order affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: As we read this record, the order sought to be vacated was entered upon the consent of the Veterans’ Administration. No sufficient reason is stated in the moving papers why the Veterans’ Administration should be relieved from the effect of this consent. Under the circumstances we conclude that the motion to vacate the former order was properly denied. We are not passing upon the question as to what effect the original order may have on the final accounting of the committee. All concur. (The order denies a motion to vacate an award of attorneys’ fees.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, J J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 639, 4 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-appointment-of-a-committee-of-the-person-estate-of-sementillo-nyappdiv-1938.