In re the Estate of Imperato
222 N.E.2d 394, 18 N.Y.2d 825, 275 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1027
Opinion
Order reversed and decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, reinstated, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division to both parties payable out of the estate. The dis-positive provisions of the will were limited by the conditions set forth in the fourth paragraph thereof. Accordingly, the determination of the Surrogate is reinstated for the reasons stated in his opinion (44 Misc 2d 639).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In re the Estate of Imperato, 222 N.E.2d 394, 18 N.Y.2d 825, 275 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1966 N.Y. LEXIS 1027 (N.Y. 1966).
222 N.E.2d 394 (In re the Estate of Imperato) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In re Cincotta
106 A.D.3d 998 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re the Estate of Shannon
154 Misc. 2d 998 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1992)
In re Tantillo
157 A.D.2d 784 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
In re Culeton
136 A.D.2d 932 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
In re the Estate of Rutherford
125 A.D.2d 312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
In re the Estate of Kronen
496 N.E.2d 678 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
In re the Estate of Kronen
114 A.D.2d 1033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Margulis v. Teichman
125 Misc. 2d 729 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1984)
In re the Estate of Bromley
88 Misc. 2d 112 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1976)