In re the Estate of Cencevizky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Cencevizky

8 A.D.2d 635, 185 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8944

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

DecidedApril 27, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 635 (In re the Estate of Cencevizky) 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 Cencevizky, 8 A.D.2d 635, 185 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, as denied appellant the right of election, pursuant to section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law, on the ground that she had abandoned decedent. Decree insofar as appealed from reversed, and proceeding remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for the purpose of taking such additional proof as may be available on the issue of abandonment, and making a determination in the light of all the proof adduced. Proof that appellant left decedent without his consent should be developed at greater length. On making the determination, while not mandatory, it would be of material assistance on any subsequent appeal if the learned Surrogate would make findings of fact on the issue of abandonment on the basis of the original and additional proof. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, as denied appellant the right of election, pursuant to section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law, on the ground that she had abandoned decedent. Decree insofar as appealed from reversed, and proceeding remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for the purpose of taking such additional proof as may be available on the issue of abandonment, and making a determination in the light of all the proof adduced. Proof that appellant left decedent without his consent should be developed at greater length. On making the determination, while not mandatory, it would be of material assistance on any subsequent appeal if the learned Surrogate would make findings of fact on the issue of abandonment on the basis of the original and additional proof. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 635, 185 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-cencevizky-nyappdiv-1959.