In re the Estate of Diakantonis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Diakantonis

294 A.D.2d 498, 742 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5187

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

DecidedMay 20, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 498 (In re the Estate of Diakantonis) 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 Diakantonis, 294 A.D.2d 498, 742 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA article 10, the objectant Lorraine Diakantonis appeals, as limited by her brief and upon further limitation at oral argument of this appeal, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Weber, S.), dated January 22, 2001, as denied that branch of her motion which was to impose a sanction upon the petitioner George Diakantonis and his attorney pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the objectant personally.

Contrary to the objectant’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of her motion which was to impose a sanction upon the petitioner and his attorney pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130 (see Matter [499]*499of Winston, 243 AD2d 638, 639). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA article 10, the objectant Lorraine Diakantonis appeals, as limited by her brief and upon further limitation at oral argument of this appeal, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Weber, S.), dated January 22, 2001, as denied that branch of her motion which was to impose a sanction upon the petitioner George Diakantonis and his attorney pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the objectant personally.

Contrary to the objectant’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of her motion which was to impose a sanction upon the petitioner and his attorney pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130 (see Matter [499]*499of Winston, 243 AD2d 638, 639). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 498, 742 N.Y.S.2d 857, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-diakantonis-nyappdiv-2002.