In re the Estate of Gaye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Gaye

285 A.D.2d 465, 727 N.Y.S.2d 334, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6909

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 465 (In re the Estate of Gaye) 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 Gaye, 285 A.D.2d 465, 727 N.Y.S.2d 334, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an accounting proceeding, C. Robinson & Associates, P. C., the attorney for the Executor of the Estate of Theresa Gaye, appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated June 26, 2000, which granted that branch of the objectant’s motion which was to impose a monetary sanction upon it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a monetary sanction upon the appellant (see, CPLR 3126; Kaufman v Red Ground Corp., 170 AD2d 484). The ap[466]*466pellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an accounting proceeding, C. Robinson & Associates, P. C., the attorney for the Executor of the Estate of Theresa Gaye, appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated June 26, 2000, which granted that branch of the objectant’s motion which was to impose a monetary sanction upon it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a monetary sanction upon the appellant (see, CPLR 3126; Kaufman v Red Ground Corp., 170 AD2d 484). The ap[466]*466pellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 465, 727 N.Y.S.2d 334, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-gaye-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack