In re the Estate of Davidson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Davidson

262 A.D.2d 408, 689 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6314

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

DecidedJune 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 408 (In re the Estate of Davidson) 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 Davidson, 262 A.D.2d 408, 689 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding, inter alia, [409]*409for the appointment of a successor executor and trustee under the will of Sara H. Davidson, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated April 2, 1998, as denied that branch of their motion which sought, in effect, to rescind a 1984 “Agreement of Compromise of Will Contest” between, among others, the petitioners and the respondent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, their allegations of fraud were insufficient to set aside the 1984 “Agreement of Compromise of Will Contest” between, among others, the petitioners and the respondent (see, French v Quinn, 243 AD2d 792; Matter of Yter, 225 AD2d 702). Ritter, J. P., Joy, Goldstein 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, [409]*409for the appointment of a successor executor and trustee under the will of Sara H. Davidson, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated April 2, 1998, as denied that branch of their motion which sought, in effect, to rescind a 1984 “Agreement of Compromise of Will Contest” between, among others, the petitioners and the respondent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, their allegations of fraud were insufficient to set aside the 1984 “Agreement of Compromise of Will Contest” between, among others, the petitioners and the respondent (see, French v Quinn, 243 AD2d 792; Matter of Yter, 225 AD2d 702). Ritter, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 408, 689 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-davidson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack