In re the Estate of Griffen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Griffen

279 A.D.2d 524, 718 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 369

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 524 (In re the Estate of Griffen) 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 Griffen, 279 A.D.2d 524, 718 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to SCPA 711 to remove the respondent Douglas McHoul as a preliminary executor, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess County (Shapiro, S.), dated November 23, 1999, which, among other things, denied those branches of her motion which were to remove the respondent Douglas McHoul as a preliminary executor, for an accounting, and for an immediate turnover of the subject account to the estate.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, there is no basis to disturb the determination of Surrogate’s Court. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to SCPA 711 to remove the respondent Douglas McHoul as a preliminary executor, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess County (Shapiro, S.), dated November 23, 1999, which, among other things, denied those branches of her motion which were to remove the respondent Douglas McHoul as a preliminary executor, for an accounting, and for an immediate turnover of the subject account to the estate.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, there is no basis to disturb the determination of Surrogate’s Court. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 524, 718 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-griffen-nyappdiv-2001.