In re the Estate of Holke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Holke

79 A.D.3d 543, 911 N.Y.S.2d 906

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 543 (In re the Estate of Holke) 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 Holke, 79 A.D.3d 543, 911 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, S.), entered on or about August 13, 2009, which dismissed the petition to revoke letters testamentary issued to respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to show that respondent caused harm to the estate (see SCPA 711 [2]; Matter of Jordan, 52 AD3d 328, 329-330 [2008]).

The statements in the Surrogate’s order that petitioner challenges are supported in the record, and the Surrogate stated that she had reviewed all the papers and exhibits that were submitted.

Petitioner’s temporary residence in the decedent’s apartment to care for her while paying rent on his own apartment and his trip to Sweden to dispose of her ashes were voluntary and not authorized by respondent; thus, the expenses he incurred are not reimbursable by the estate. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, S.), entered on or about August 13, 2009, which dismissed the petition to revoke letters testamentary issued to respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to show that respondent caused harm to the estate (see SCPA 711 [2]; Matter of Jordan, 52 AD3d 328, 329-330 [2008]).

The statements in the Surrogate’s order that petitioner challenges are supported in the record, and the Surrogate stated that she had reviewed all the papers and exhibits that were submitted.

Petitioner’s temporary residence in the decedent’s apartment to care for her while paying rent on his own apartment and his trip to Sweden to dispose of her ashes were voluntary and not authorized by respondent; thus, the expenses he incurred are not reimbursable by the estate. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 543, 911 N.Y.S.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-holke-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack