In re the Estate of Corrigan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Corrigan

10 A.D.2d 767, 197 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11214

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 767 (In re the Estate of Corrigan) 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 Corrigan, 10 A.D.2d 767, 197 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Broome County Surrogate’s Court denying appellant’s motion to vacate a previous order of the same court transferring the case to the County Court of Broome County for the trial of certain issues of fact. This proceeding was brought under section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act to fix and determine appellant’s fee as an attorney. Appellant appeared and answered the petition and demanded, in writing a jury trial. After due notice and a hearing at which both parties were represented, the Surrogate orally granted an order transferring the case to the County Court for a jury trial and directed appellant to prepare and submit an order. When this was not done, the Surrogate requested attorneys for the respondent to prepare an order, and after personally making certain changes, the Surrogate signed the order. While both parties treat it as such, it would seem doubtful if an order thus made, after notice and a hearing, is an ex parte order. If appellant was dissatisfied with the form or content of the order itself, he could, and still can, move to resettle it. The Surrogate had the authority under section 68 of the Surrogate’s Court Act to make the order and there is nothing in the record to justify the reversal of an order refusing to vacate it in its entirety. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Broome County Surrogate’s Court denying appellant’s motion to vacate a previous order of the same court transferring the case to the County Court of Broome County for the trial of certain issues of fact. This proceeding was brought under section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act to fix and determine appellant’s fee as an attorney. Appellant appeared and answered the petition and demanded, in writing a jury trial. After due notice and a hearing at which both parties were represented, the Surrogate orally granted an order transferring the case to the County Court for a jury trial and directed appellant to prepare and submit an order. When this was not done, the Surrogate requested attorneys for the respondent to prepare an order, and after personally making certain changes, the Surrogate signed the order. While both parties treat it as such, it would seem doubtful if an order thus made, after notice and a hearing, is an ex parte order. If appellant was dissatisfied with the form or content of the order itself, he could, and still can, move to resettle it. The Surrogate had the authority under section 68 of the Surrogate’s Court Act to make the order and there is nothing in the record to justify the reversal of an order refusing to vacate it in its entirety. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 767, 197 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-corrigan-nyappdiv-1960.