In re the Estate of Cosentino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Cosentino

218 A.D.2d 799, 631 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8952

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

DecidedAugust 28, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 218 A.D.2d 799 (In re the Estate of Cosentino) 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 Cosentino, 218 A.D.2d 799, 631 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to revoke letters of administration, Anthony J. Cosentino appeals from (1) an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County (D’Arrigo, S.), dated May 2,1994, which, inter alia, revoked letters of administration previously issued to him, and (2) an order of the same court, dated May 11, 1994, which, inter alia, granted temporary letters of administration to the petitioner Eileen Cosentino.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant.

The Surrogate’s Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in revoking the appellant’s letters of administration (see, SCPA 711 [2], [3], [4]; Matter of Marsh v Marsh, 202 AD2d 367). We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to revoke letters of administration, Anthony J. Cosentino appeals from (1) an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County (D’Arrigo, S.), dated May 2,1994, which, inter alia, revoked letters of administration previously issued to him, and (2) an order of the same court, dated May 11, 1994, which, inter alia, granted temporary letters of administration to the petitioner Eileen Cosentino.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant.

The Surrogate’s Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in revoking the appellant’s letters of administration (see, SCPA 711 [2], [3], [4]; Matter of Marsh v Marsh, 202 AD2d 367). We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 A.D.2d 799, 631 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-cosentino-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack