In re the Compulsory Accounting of Provisero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Compulsory Accounting of Provisero

281 A.D. 844, 119 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3501

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 844 (In re the Compulsory Accounting of Provisero) 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 Compulsory Accounting of Provisero, 281 A.D. 844, 119 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to compel respondent to render and settle her account as administratrix, order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, granting respondent’s motion pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and dismissing appellant’s petition on the merits reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, payable out of the estate, and motion denied, without costs. As a matter of pleading, appellant’s petition is sufficient to sustain her demand for an accounting. Defenses alleged in the answer may not be considered in the determination of the motion since the allegations of such defenses are deemed controverted. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 243.) Issues of fact are presented which require the denial of relief pursuant to rule 112. Nolan, P. J., Adel and Beldoek, JJ., concur; Wenzel and Schmidt, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: The petitioner herein was, on the face of her petition, not entitled to the relief she sought. She should have instituted a plenary proceeding to set aside the release and concessions signed by her and others, and to be relieved of her waiver and consent. Not until these matters were disposed of could she possibly be entitled to an accounting.

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

In a proceeding to compel respondent to render and settle her account as administratrix, order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, granting respondent’s motion pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and dismissing appellant’s petition on the merits reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, payable out of the estate, and motion denied, without costs. As a matter of pleading, appellant’s petition is sufficient to sustain her demand for an accounting. Defenses alleged in the answer may not be considered in the determination of the motion since the allegations of such defenses are deemed controverted. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 243.) Issues of fact are presented which require the denial of relief pursuant to rule 112. Nolan, P. J., Adel and Beldoek, JJ., concur; Wenzel and Schmidt, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm, with the following memorandum: The petitioner herein was, on the face of her petition, not entitled to the relief she sought. She should have instituted a plenary proceeding to set aside the release and concessions signed by her and others, and to be relieved of her waiver and consent. Not until these matters were disposed of could she possibly be entitled to an accounting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 844, 119 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-compulsory-accounting-of-provisero-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack