In re the Estate of Hoppenfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Hoppenfeld

203 A.D.2d 186, 612 N.Y.S.2d 848

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

DecidedApril 26, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 186 (In re the Estate of Hoppenfeld) 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 Hoppenfeld, 203 A.D.2d 186, 612 N.Y.S.2d 848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee R. Roth, S.), entered on or about November 16, 1993, which denied petitioner-appellant’s motion for a declaratory judgment that respondent Joan Hoppenfeld is without standing to appear in the proceeding commenced to compel the Public Administra[187]*187tor to bring an action to determine ownership of Hoppy’s Realty Corp, granted respondent’s cross-motion to dismiss the application for a declaratory judgment, directed that petitioner pay $1,000 to the Clients’ Security Fund within 7 days after service of a copy of the order and that she pay the sum of $3,500 to respondent as costs incurred in the defense of this motion, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Surrogate’s Court, in denying petitioner’s motion, appropriately found it to be without any semblance of merit. Indeed, petitioner is so clearly engaged in an abuse of process that the court was justified in imposing sanctions and costs against her pursuant to SCPA 2301 and 22 NYCRR part 130. Concur — Wallach, J. P, Kupferman, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee R. Roth, S.), entered on or about November 16, 1993, which denied petitioner-appellant’s motion for a declaratory judgment that respondent Joan Hoppenfeld is without standing to appear in the proceeding commenced to compel the Public Administra[187]*187tor to bring an action to determine ownership of Hoppy’s Realty Corp, granted respondent’s cross-motion to dismiss the application for a declaratory judgment, directed that petitioner pay $1,000 to the Clients’ Security Fund within 7 days after service of a copy of the order and that she pay the sum of $3,500 to respondent as costs incurred in the defense of this motion, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Surrogate’s Court, in denying petitioner’s motion, appropriately found it to be without any semblance of merit. Indeed, petitioner is so clearly engaged in an abuse of process that the court was justified in imposing sanctions and costs against her pursuant to SCPA 2301 and 22 NYCRR part 130. Concur — Wallach, J. P, Kupferman, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 186, 612 N.Y.S.2d 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-hoppenfeld-nyappdiv-1994.