In re the Estate of Carvel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Carvel

303 A.D.2d 405, 755 N.Y.S.2d 851

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 405 (In re the Estate of Carvel) 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 Carvel, 303 A.D.2d 405, 755 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to revoke letters testamentary and a trusteeship, Pamela Carvel appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, S.), dated November 8, 2001, as denied, without prejudice to renewal, the motion of the Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation for partial summary judgment vacating a confession of judgment entered on February 7, 1995.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

While a substantial right of a party is affected by an order denying that party’s motion for relief without prejudice to renewal (see Drepaul v Allstate Ins. Co., 299 AD2d 391 [2002]), where, as here, the party seeking to appeal was the successful opponent of such a motion, that party is not aggrieved (see Drepaul v Allstate Ins. Co., supra’, Bird v Bird, 111 AD2d 204 [1985]). Santucci, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to revoke letters testamentary and a trusteeship, Pamela Carvel appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, S.), dated November 8, 2001, as denied, without prejudice to renewal, the motion of the Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation for partial summary judgment vacating a confession of judgment entered on February 7, 1995.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

While a substantial right of a party is affected by an order denying that party’s motion for relief without prejudice to renewal (see Drepaul v Allstate Ins. Co., 299 AD2d 391 [2002]), where, as here, the party seeking to appeal was the successful opponent of such a motion, that party is not aggrieved (see Drepaul v Allstate Ins. Co., supra’, Bird v Bird, 111 AD2d 204 [1985]). Santucci, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 405, 755 N.Y.S.2d 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-carvel-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack