In re the Estate of Hansen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Hansen

61 A.D.2d 1013, 402 N.Y.S.2d 624

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 1013 (In re the Estate of Hansen) 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 Hansen, 61 A.D.2d 1013, 402 N.Y.S.2d 624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In proceedings to set aside and vacate the granting of letters of administration to the Public Administrator of Queens County upon the estates of decedents Jorgen Peter Schmidt Hansen and Wolfgang Hansen, petitioners separately appeal from two orders (one in each proceeding) of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, both dated February 10, 1977, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment. Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The motions for summary judgment rested on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction. We find that there are triable issues of L et with [1014]*1014respect to the jurisdiction of the Surrogate’s Court. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In proceedings to set aside and vacate the granting of letters of administration to the Public Administrator of Queens County upon the estates of decedents Jorgen Peter Schmidt Hansen and Wolfgang Hansen, petitioners separately appeal from two orders (one in each proceeding) of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, both dated February 10, 1977, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment. Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The motions for summary judgment rested on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction. We find that there are triable issues of L et with [1014]*1014respect to the jurisdiction of the Surrogate’s Court. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 1013, 402 N.Y.S.2d 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-hansen-nyappdiv-1978.