In re the Estate of Kellas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Kellas

264 A.D. 748, 34 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4489

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

DecidedApril 29, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 748 (In re the Estate of Kellas) 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 Kellas, 264 A.D. 748, 34 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from the order of the Franklin County Surrogate’s Court denying an application made by appellant LeRoy M. Kellas to revise the stipulation entered into by the parties in open court on the trial herein. Substantially the same question was submitted and argued before this court and denied at the March, 1941, term on appellant’s motion for the appointment of a referee, which motion was made in conjunction with his motion for a reargument of the original appeal on his appeal from an ordei of the Surrogate’s Court denying his motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. [See 261 App. Div. 1117.] The order herein appealed from should be affirmed. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Schenck, JJ. [See, also, 256 App. Div. 425; affd., 281 N. Y. 813; motion to reargue denied, 283 id. 588; 262 App. Div. 921.]

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

This is an appeal from the order of the Franklin County Surrogate’s Court denying an application made by appellant LeRoy M. Kellas to revise the stipulation entered into by the parties in open court on the trial herein. Substantially the same question was submitted and argued before this court and denied at the March, 1941, term on appellant’s motion for the appointment of a referee, which motion was made in conjunction with his motion for a reargument of the original appeal on his appeal from an ordei of the Surrogate’s Court denying his motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. [See 261 App. Div. 1117.] The order herein appealed from should be affirmed. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Schenck, JJ. [See, also, 256 App. Div. 425; affd., 281 N. Y. 813; motion to reargue denied, 283 id. 588; 262 App. Div. 921.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 748, 34 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-kellas-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack