In re the Estate of Hajridin

New York Court of Appeals

In re the Estate of Hajridin

309 N.E.2d 131, 33 N.Y.2d 955, 353 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1748

DecidedFebruary 13, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 309 N.E.2d 131 (In re the Estate of Hajridin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals 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 Hajridin, 309 N.E.2d 131, 33 N.Y.2d 955, 353 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1748 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum.

The factual determination made by the Surrogate and affirmed by the Appellate Division that claimants would receive the benefit, use and control .of the funds in question, may not be set aside (cf. Matter of Leikind, 22 N Y 2d 346, 351-352, app. dsmd. sub nom. Laikind v. Attorney General of [957]*957New York, 397 U. S. 148; Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U. S. 429). Questions relating to the weight of the evidence are not, of course, properly before us (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 108, p. 452), but we take pains to point out that it would have been better, and indeed it is desirable, to have had proof in addition to that of the sole witness sworn in this case, of the circumstances existing in any such foreign country.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabbielli, Jones, Waohtlbr, Babin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum.

The factual determination made by the Surrogate and affirmed by the Appellate Division that claimants would receive the benefit, use and control .of the funds in question, may not be set aside (cf. Matter of Leikind, 22 N Y 2d 346, 351-352, app. dsmd. sub nom. Laikind v. Attorney General of [957]*957New York, 397 U. S. 148; Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U. S. 429). Questions relating to the weight of the evidence are not, of course, properly before us (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 108, p. 452), but we take pains to point out that it would have been better, and indeed it is desirable, to have had proof in addition to that of the sole witness sworn in this case, of the circumstances existing in any such foreign country.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabbielli, Jones, Waohtlbr, Babin and Stevens concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 N.E.2d 131, 33 N.Y.2d 955, 353 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-hajridin-ny-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack