In re the Estate of Heller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Heller

216 A.D.2d 393, 628 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6187

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

DecidedJune 12, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 393 (In re the Estate of Heller) 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 Heller, 216 A.D.2d 393, 628 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 to discover property relating to a partnership in which the decedent and the respondent, David Heller, were partners, the petitioner, as preliminary executrix of the decedent’s estate, appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated June 3,1992, as denied her motion to compel discovery.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

"An order denying a motion to compel a witness to answer questions propounded at an examination before trial is akin to [394]*394a ruling made in the course of the examination itself and as such is not appealable as of right” (Ewell v Moore, 133 AD2d 67). Moreover, this Court has held on numerous occasions that "we are disinclined to grant leave to parties who have taken it upon themselves to perfect an appeal without leave to appeal” (Roberts v Modica, 102 AD2d 886). Since the petitioner’s motion to compel was based on the respondents’ failure to answer certain questions asked at their depositions, the order is not appealable as of right. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 to discover property relating to a partnership in which the decedent and the respondent, David Heller, were partners, the petitioner, as preliminary executrix of the decedent’s estate, appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated June 3,1992, as denied her motion to compel discovery.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

"An order denying a motion to compel a witness to answer questions propounded at an examination before trial is akin to [394]*394a ruling made in the course of the examination itself and as such is not appealable as of right” (Ewell v Moore, 133 AD2d 67). Moreover, this Court has held on numerous occasions that "we are disinclined to grant leave to parties who have taken it upon themselves to perfect an appeal without leave to appeal” (Roberts v Modica, 102 AD2d 886). Since the petitioner’s motion to compel was based on the respondents’ failure to answer certain questions asked at their depositions, the order is not appealable as of right. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 393, 628 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-heller-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack