In re the Estate of Benkert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Benkert

288 A.D.2d 147, 734 N.Y.S.2d 427, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11456

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 147 (In re the Estate of Benkert) 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 Benkert, 288 A.D.2d 147, 734 N.Y.S.2d 427, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered August 31, 2000, which granted appellant’s motion to renew and reargue her motion to expunge and/or seal certain papers previously filed in a probate proceeding, and, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the prior order, entered on or about April 18, 2000, denying the motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the prior order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the subsequent order.

The Surrogate correctly held that the stipulation of the parties to a terminated probate proceeding consenting to the sealing or expunging of certain records in that proceeding does not obviate the need to show good cause for such relief, as required by 22 NYCRR 216.1 (a). Nor does the parties’ mutual desire to prevent dissemination of inflammatory and embarrassing allegations contained in the record constitute such good cause (cf., Danco Labs, v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 AD2d 1, 8). We have considered appellant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered August 31, 2000, which granted appellant’s motion to renew and reargue her motion to expunge and/or seal certain papers previously filed in a probate proceeding, and, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the prior order, entered on or about April 18, 2000, denying the motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the prior order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the subsequent order.

The Surrogate correctly held that the stipulation of the parties to a terminated probate proceeding consenting to the sealing or expunging of certain records in that proceeding does not obviate the need to show good cause for such relief, as required by 22 NYCRR 216.1 (a). Nor does the parties’ mutual desire to prevent dissemination of inflammatory and embarrassing allegations contained in the record constitute such good cause (cf., Danco Labs, v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 AD2d 1, 8). We have considered appellant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 147, 734 N.Y.S.2d 427, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-benkert-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack