In re the Estate of Cavallo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Cavallo

239 A.D.2d 187, 657 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4931

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

DecidedMay 8, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 187 (In re the Estate of Cavallo) 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 Cavallo, 239 A.D.2d 187, 657 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4931 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County (Lee Holzman, S.), entered April 17,1996, which, to the extent appealed from, after a nonjury trial, directed that respondent-appellant register on its books 21 shares of its capital stock to petitioners within five days of delivery of the necessary documentation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Surrogate’s conclusion that, at the time of the subject transfers, there was no valid and consistently applied restriction on transfer (compare, Glens Falls Ins. Co. v National Bd. of Fire Underwriters Bldg. Corp., 63 Misc 2d 989, 990-992, affd 36 AD2d 793, lv denied 29 NY2d 482) is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence in the record (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495). The Surrogate properly rejected the argument that a later-enacted restriction should [188]*188be applied retroactively. We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Petitioners’ argument for modification of that part of the decree favorable to appellant is not before us in the absence of a cross appeal (see, Matter of Blue v Wilkins, 71 AD2d 935). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County (Lee Holzman, S.), entered April 17,1996, which, to the extent appealed from, after a nonjury trial, directed that respondent-appellant register on its books 21 shares of its capital stock to petitioners within five days of delivery of the necessary documentation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Surrogate’s conclusion that, at the time of the subject transfers, there was no valid and consistently applied restriction on transfer (compare, Glens Falls Ins. Co. v National Bd. of Fire Underwriters Bldg. Corp., 63 Misc 2d 989, 990-992, affd 36 AD2d 793, lv denied 29 NY2d 482) is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence in the record (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495). The Surrogate properly rejected the argument that a later-enacted restriction should [188]*188be applied retroactively. We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Petitioners’ argument for modification of that part of the decree favorable to appellant is not before us in the absence of a cross appeal (see, Matter of Blue v Wilkins, 71 AD2d 935). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 187, 657 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-cavallo-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack