In re the Estate of Dorsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Dorsch

87 A.D.2d 612, 450 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15912

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.2d 612 (In re the Estate of Dorsch) 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 Dorsch, 87 A.D.2d 612, 450 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a contested probate proceeding, objectant Sophie Herska appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Orange County (Green, S.), dated September 15, 1980, denying her motion to set aside the decision of that court, dated April 4, 1980, which admitted the will to probate, and for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Order reversed, with costs payable out of the estate, and new trial granted. Objectant has produced newly discovered evidence which, if introduced at the trial, would probably have produced a different result and which could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under CPLR 4404. Accordingly, she is entitled to a new trial (CPLR 5015, subd [a], par 2). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In a contested probate proceeding, objectant Sophie Herska appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Orange County (Green, S.), dated September 15, 1980, denying her motion to set aside the decision of that court, dated April 4, 1980, which admitted the will to probate, and for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Order reversed, with costs payable out of the estate, and new trial granted. Objectant has produced newly discovered evidence which, if introduced at the trial, would probably have produced a different result and which could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under CPLR 4404. Accordingly, she is entitled to a new trial (CPLR 5015, subd [a], par 2). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 612, 450 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-dorsch-nyappdiv-1982.