In re the Estate of DePaul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of DePaul

249 A.D.2d 390, 670 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3983

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

DecidedApril 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 390 (In re the Estate of DePaul) 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 DePaul, 249 A.D.2d 390, 670 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a contested probate proceeding, the objectants appeal from (1) a decision of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated June 10, 1997, and (2) a decree of the same court, dated June 13, 1997, admitting the will to probate.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the decree is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs payable by the objectants personally.

The Surrogate properly denied the objectants’ motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement. “It is well settled that stipulations of settlement are judicially favored, and may not be lightly cast aside” (Matter of Gruntz, 168 AD2d 558, 559). “[A]bsent a showing that a stipulation of settlement was the product of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress, it will not be disturbed by the court” (Enright v Vasile, 205 AD2d 732, 733). The record indicates that the court conducted a proper allocution of the objectant Michael DePaul and determined that he voluntarily and knowingly accepted the terms of the stipulation.

The objectants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a contested probate proceeding, the objectants appeal from (1) a decision of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated June 10, 1997, and (2) a decree of the same court, dated June 13, 1997, admitting the will to probate.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the decree is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs payable by the objectants personally.

The Surrogate properly denied the objectants’ motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement. “It is well settled that stipulations of settlement are judicially favored, and may not be lightly cast aside” (Matter of Gruntz, 168 AD2d 558, 559). “[A]bsent a showing that a stipulation of settlement was the product of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress, it will not be disturbed by the court” (Enright v Vasile, 205 AD2d 732, 733). The record indicates that the court conducted a proper allocution of the objectant Michael DePaul and determined that he voluntarily and knowingly accepted the terms of the stipulation.

The objectants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 390, 670 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-depaul-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack