In re the Estate of Irwin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Irwin

60 A.D.2d 885, 401 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9934

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 885 (In re the Estate of Irwin) 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 Irwin, 60 A.D.2d 885, 401 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA article 21 to compel delivery by appellant, in his capacity as executor and trustee of the estate of Rose Irwin, of specific personal properties in his possession to petitioner, the appeal is from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, dated June 27, 1977, which, after a hearing, inter alia, (1) decreed that petitioner was the rightful owner of the properties in question, (2) directed appellant to deliver those properties to petitioner and (3) removed appellant as executor and trustee of the estate. Decree affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record amply demonstrates that the funds were not safe in the hands of the appellant and that the circumstances warranted the serious response of his removal as trustee and [886]*886executor (see SCPA 719, subd 10; 711, subd 2). Martuscello, J. P., Rabin, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA article 21 to compel delivery by appellant, in his capacity as executor and trustee of the estate of Rose Irwin, of specific personal properties in his possession to petitioner, the appeal is from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, dated June 27, 1977, which, after a hearing, inter alia, (1) decreed that petitioner was the rightful owner of the properties in question, (2) directed appellant to deliver those properties to petitioner and (3) removed appellant as executor and trustee of the estate. Decree affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record amply demonstrates that the funds were not safe in the hands of the appellant and that the circumstances warranted the serious response of his removal as trustee and [886]*886executor (see SCPA 719, subd 10; 711, subd 2). Martuscello, J. P., Rabin, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 885, 401 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-irwin-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack