In re the Estate of Forgione

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Forgione

77 A.D.3d 943, 909 N.Y.S.2d 391

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

DecidedOctober 26, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 943 (In re the Estate of Forgione) 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 Forgione, 77 A.D.3d 943, 909 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated May 18, 2009, as granted the respondent’s motion pursuant to CELR 3126 to dismiss the proceeding.

[944]*944Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the petitioner personally.

The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3126 because of the petitioner’s extensive delay in scheduling the examinations of out-of-state attesting witnesses pursuant to SCPA 1404 (see Rizzuti v Laucella, 57 AD3d 755 [2008]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

In a probate proceeding, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated May 18, 2009, as granted the respondent’s motion pursuant to CELR 3126 to dismiss the proceeding.

[944]*944Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the petitioner personally.

The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3126 because of the petitioner’s extensive delay in scheduling the examinations of out-of-state attesting witnesses pursuant to SCPA 1404 (see Rizzuti v Laucella, 57 AD3d 755 [2008]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 943, 909 N.Y.S.2d 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-forgione-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack