In re the Estate of Hiddessen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Hiddessen

83 A.D.2d 965, 444 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15421

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.2d 965 (In re the Estate of Hiddessen) 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 Hiddessen, 83 A.D.2d 965, 444 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an accounting proceeding, the claimant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Laurino, S.), dated August 14, 1980, as dismissed his objections to “Schedule D” of the account of petitioner, the Public Administrator of Queens County. Decree affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The claimant failed to sustain his burden of proving that he was entitled to recover for the room and board furnished without charge to his deceased brother (see Collyer v Collyer, 113 NY 442; Matter of Adams, 1 AD2d 259; see, also, Holt v Tuite, 188 NY 17; Williams v Hutchinson, 3 NY 312, 318). Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

In an accounting proceeding, the claimant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Laurino, S.), dated August 14, 1980, as dismissed his objections to “Schedule D” of the account of petitioner, the Public Administrator of Queens County. Decree affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The claimant failed to sustain his burden of proving that he was entitled to recover for the room and board furnished without charge to his deceased brother (see Collyer v Collyer, 113 NY 442; Matter of Adams, 1 AD2d 259; see, also, Holt v Tuite, 188 NY 17; Williams v Hutchinson, 3 NY 312, 318). Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 965, 444 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-hiddessen-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack