In re the Estate of Cosgrove

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Cosgrove

281 A.D.2d 626, 722 N.Y.S.2d 180, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3077

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 626 (In re the Estate of Cosgrove) 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 Cosgrove, 281 A.D.2d 626, 722 N.Y.S.2d 180, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3077 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to SCPA 2103 to discover property withheld from the decedent’s estate, Dominick J. DeDeo and Deborah A. DeDeo appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Weber, S.), dated December 6, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate an order of the same court (Prudenti, S.), entered June 25, 1996, upon their default in answering or appearing at an inquest, directing them to reimburse the decedent’s estate in the sum of $60,327.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants were obligated to establish both a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious defense (see, Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568). “A decision to vacate a prior order or judgment rests in the sound discretion of the court and will be upheld in the absence of an improvident exercise of that discretion” (Spodek v Feibusch, 259 AD2d 693). The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to vacate the order entered upon their default, as they did not offer a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the proceeding. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to SCPA 2103 to discover property withheld from the decedent’s estate, Dominick J. DeDeo and Deborah A. DeDeo appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Weber, S.), dated December 6, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate an order of the same court (Prudenti, S.), entered June 25, 1996, upon their default in answering or appearing at an inquest, directing them to reimburse the decedent’s estate in the sum of $60,327.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants were obligated to establish both a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious defense (see, Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568). “A decision to vacate a prior order or judgment rests in the sound discretion of the court and will be upheld in the absence of an improvident exercise of that discretion” (Spodek v Feibusch, 259 AD2d 693). The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to vacate the order entered upon their default, as they did not offer a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the proceeding. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 626, 722 N.Y.S.2d 180, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-cosgrove-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack