In re the Estate of Arzillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Arzillo

223 A.D.2d 701, 637 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 693

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 701 (In re the Estate of Arzillo) 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 Estate of Arzillo, 223 A.D.2d 701, 637 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an accounting proceeding, the objectant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated August 25, 1994, as granted the executor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing his objections.

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

Settlements entered into in open court are binding and are not lightly cast aside (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230; Doppelt v Doppelt, 215 AD2d 715). Here, the appellant, who was the decedent’s son, explicitly agreed to "accept the sum of $100,000 in full settlement of any and all claims which he may have against the estate, the decedent, and any of the Arzillo Corporations which form a part of this estate”. There was no evidence of fraud in the inducement. Ac[702]*702cordingly, the appellant’s objections were properly dismissed. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an accounting proceeding, the objectant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated August 25, 1994, as granted the executor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing his objections.

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

Settlements entered into in open court are binding and are not lightly cast aside (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230; Doppelt v Doppelt, 215 AD2d 715). Here, the appellant, who was the decedent’s son, explicitly agreed to "accept the sum of $100,000 in full settlement of any and all claims which he may have against the estate, the decedent, and any of the Arzillo Corporations which form a part of this estate”. There was no evidence of fraud in the inducement. Ac[702]*702cordingly, the appellant’s objections were properly dismissed. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 701, 637 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-arzillo-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack