In re the Estate of Dudensing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Dudensing

56 A.D.2d 545, 391 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10548

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 545 (In re the Estate of Dudensing) 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 Dudensing, 56 A.D.2d 545, 391 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County, entered December 5, 1975, revoking [546]*546letters testamentary and letters of trusteeship heretofore granted to appellant Joan Lalor, is unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to respondents filing briefs payable out of the decedent’s estate. At a minimum, the Surrogate was justified in finding that appellant improvidently managed the property committed to her charge (SCPA 711, subd 2), and that she borrowed money individually from the estate without prior approval of the Surrogate. Appellant’s pro se brief does not persuade us that the Surrogate erred in revoking her letters. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Bims, Silverman and Markewich, JJ.

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

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County, entered December 5, 1975, revoking [546]*546letters testamentary and letters of trusteeship heretofore granted to appellant Joan Lalor, is unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to respondents filing briefs payable out of the decedent’s estate. At a minimum, the Surrogate was justified in finding that appellant improvidently managed the property committed to her charge (SCPA 711, subd 2), and that she borrowed money individually from the estate without prior approval of the Surrogate. Appellant’s pro se brief does not persuade us that the Surrogate erred in revoking her letters. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Kupferman, Bims, Silverman and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 545, 391 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-dudensing-nyappdiv-1977.