In re the Estate of Edelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Edelson

88 A.D.2d 640, 450 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16863

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

DecidedMay 17, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 640 (In re the Estate of Edelson) 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 Edelson, 88 A.D.2d 640, 450 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding for the issuance of letters of administration in the estate of David Edelson, the objectant, Florence Sklar, appeals (1) from an undated decision of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), which, inter alia, determined that her objections should be dismissed, (2) from an order of the same court, dated December 8, 1980, which upon reargument, adhered to the original decision (we deem the order to be one made upon the aforesaid decision), and (3) from a decree of the same court, dated December 15, 1980, which, inter alia, directed that letters of administration be granted to Stuart Roy Edelson, upon his qualifying according to law. Appeal from the decision dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision. Appeal from the order dismissed (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d [641]*641241, 248). Decree affirmed. Petitioner is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable personally by appellant. The decree of December 15, 1980 granted, inter alia, letters of administration to petitioner Stuart Roy Edelson, son of the decedent. The decedent was survived by three adult children as distributees. Petitioner, with the consent of one sister and over the objections of another sister, the appellant Florence Sklar, sought letters of administration. The mere allegation by the objectant, where apparent hostility exists among the decedent’s children, that she is more conversant with the decedent’s estate does not, as a matter of law, make the petitioner ineligible to receive letters pursuant to SCPA 707 (subd 1) (see Matter of Ryan, 81 Misc 2d 1079). Under the facts of this case, the objections raised do not justify the conclusion that the Surrogate abused his discretion in appointing the petitioner, who represented the majority interest in this relatively simple estate. Weinstein, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding for the issuance of letters of administration in the estate of David Edelson, the objectant, Florence Sklar, appeals (1) from an undated decision of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), which, inter alia, determined that her objections should be dismissed, (2) from an order of the same court, dated December 8, 1980, which upon reargument, adhered to the original decision (we deem the order to be one made upon the aforesaid decision), and (3) from a decree of the same court, dated December 15, 1980, which, inter alia, directed that letters of administration be granted to Stuart Roy Edelson, upon his qualifying according to law. Appeal from the decision dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision. Appeal from the order dismissed (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d [641]*641241, 248). Decree affirmed. Petitioner is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable personally by appellant. The decree of December 15, 1980 granted, inter alia, letters of administration to petitioner Stuart Roy Edelson, son of the decedent. The decedent was survived by three adult children as distributees. Petitioner, with the consent of one sister and over the objections of another sister, the appellant Florence Sklar, sought letters of administration. The mere allegation by the objectant, where apparent hostility exists among the decedent’s children, that she is more conversant with the decedent’s estate does not, as a matter of law, make the petitioner ineligible to receive letters pursuant to SCPA 707 (subd 1) (see Matter of Ryan, 81 Misc 2d 1079). Under the facts of this case, the objections raised do not justify the conclusion that the Surrogate abused his discretion in appointing the petitioner, who represented the majority interest in this relatively simple estate. Weinstein, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 640, 450 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-edelson-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack