In re the Estate of King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of King

261 A.D.2d 402, 688 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4481

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

DecidedMay 3, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 402 (In re the Estate of King) 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 King, 261 A.D.2d 402, 688 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103, inter alia, to discover property withheld from the estate of Vivien Kang, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County. (Emanuelli, S.), dated March 31, 1998, which granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Surrogate’s Court properly granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. The petitioner made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and there were no triable issues of fact as to whether Woodpecker Finance Ltd. was a bona fide purchaser for value of the challenged assignment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103, inter alia, to discover property withheld from the estate of Vivien Kang, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County. (Emanuelli, S.), dated March 31, 1998, which granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Surrogate’s Court properly granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. The petitioner made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and there were no triable issues of fact as to whether Woodpecker Finance Ltd. was a bona fide purchaser for value of the challenged assignment (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 402, 688 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-king-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack