In re the Estate of Huene

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Huene

267 A.D.2d 458, 700 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13294

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 458 (In re the Estate of Huene) 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 Huene, 267 A.D.2d 458, 700 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to settle the account of the estate of the decedent, Arthur H. Huene, Mary L. Huene, Donald R. Huene, Richard T. Arkwright, and Herbert A. Huene, appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Prudenti, S.), dated July 13, 1998, which, inter alia, sustained the objections of Muriel Graham and Phyllis Huene to the accounting schedule.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the estate.

We agree with the objectants’ contention that the accounting schedule submitted by the executors of the estate did not reflect the terms agreed upon in a stipulation of settlement entered into in September 1989 by the beneficiaries of a trust created under the decedent’s will. The court properly resolved the ambiguity, which the appellants claim existed in the stipulation, in favor of the objectants after reviewing the language contained in the stipulation as well as parol evidence surrounding the formation of the stipulation (see, Posh Pillows v Hawes, 138 AD2d 472). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to settle the account of the estate of the decedent, Arthur H. Huene, Mary L. Huene, Donald R. Huene, Richard T. Arkwright, and Herbert A. Huene, appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Prudenti, S.), dated July 13, 1998, which, inter alia, sustained the objections of Muriel Graham and Phyllis Huene to the accounting schedule.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the estate.

We agree with the objectants’ contention that the accounting schedule submitted by the executors of the estate did not reflect the terms agreed upon in a stipulation of settlement entered into in September 1989 by the beneficiaries of a trust created under the decedent’s will. The court properly resolved the ambiguity, which the appellants claim existed in the stipulation, in favor of the objectants after reviewing the language contained in the stipulation as well as parol evidence surrounding the formation of the stipulation (see, Posh Pillows v Hawes, 138 AD2d 472). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 458, 700 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-huene-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack