In re the Estate of Holland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Holland

50 A.D.2d 735, 375 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11511

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 735 (In re the Estate of Holland) 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 Holland, 50 A.D.2d 735, 375 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County, entered November 15, 1974, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Surrogate Gelfand. No notice of appeal was served or filed by the guardian ad litem of the infant, Paul Mazur, although a successor guardian ad litem, who was designated September 8, 1975, was granted leave to file a brief amicus curiae. Therefore, the contentions advanced on behalf of the infant are not properly before this court and appellants are without standing to raise on behalf of the infant the alleged defect of lack of jurisdiction under SCPA 315 as to the Doris Mazur trust. That issue was fully litigated below on behalf of the infant by his guardian ad litem and the determination was not appealed. It therefore becomes final (CPLR 5011) and may not be revived by indirection or even attacked directly. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Capozzoli and Lynch, JJ. [84 Misc 2d 922.]

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

— Order, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County, entered November 15, 1974, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Surrogate Gelfand. No notice of appeal was served or filed by the guardian ad litem of the infant, Paul Mazur, although a successor guardian ad litem, who was designated September 8, 1975, was granted leave to file a brief amicus curiae. Therefore, the contentions advanced on behalf of the infant are not properly before this court and appellants are without standing to raise on behalf of the infant the alleged defect of lack of jurisdiction under SCPA 315 as to the Doris Mazur trust. That issue was fully litigated below on behalf of the infant by his guardian ad litem and the determination was not appealed. It therefore becomes final (CPLR 5011) and may not be revived by indirection or even attacked directly. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Capozzoli and Lynch, JJ. [84 Misc 2d 922.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 735, 375 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-holland-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack