In re the Estate of Kopko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Kopko

31 A.D.3d 639, 817 N.Y.S.2d 907

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

DecidedJuly 18, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.3d 639 (In re the Estate of Kopko) 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 Kopko, 31 A.D.3d 639, 817 N.Y.S.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[640]*640In a proceeding to obtain letters of administration, Raymond Jorbel appeals from (1) a decision of the Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County (Nelson, A.S.), dated May 9, 2005, and (2) a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County (Del Pizzo, S.), dated June 17, 2005, which, upon the decision, directed that letters of administration be issued to Edward Kopko.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the decree is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to Edward Kopko, payable by the appellant.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court properly issued the respondent letters of administration for his late wife’s estate. The appellant’s conclusory allegations failed to demonstrate that the respondent was disqualified to serve as administrator pursuant to SCPA 707 (1) (e) (see Matter of Marsh, 179 AD2d 581 [1992]; Matter of Salvan, 132 AD2d 662 [1987]). Further, there was no showing that the acrimony between the parties would interfere with the proper administration of the estate (cf. Matter of Sadowski, 21 AD3d 1034 [2005]; Matter of Rad, 162 Misc 2d 229 [1994]). Thus, the respondent had a mandatory priority to receive the letters of administration (see SCPA 1001 [a]; Matter of Salvan, supra). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

[640]*640In a proceeding to obtain letters of administration, Raymond Jorbel appeals from (1) a decision of the Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County (Nelson, A.S.), dated May 9, 2005, and (2) a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County (Del Pizzo, S.), dated June 17, 2005, which, upon the decision, directed that letters of administration be issued to Edward Kopko.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the decree is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to Edward Kopko, payable by the appellant.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court properly issued the respondent letters of administration for his late wife’s estate. The appellant’s conclusory allegations failed to demonstrate that the respondent was disqualified to serve as administrator pursuant to SCPA 707 (1) (e) (see Matter of Marsh, 179 AD2d 581 [1992]; Matter of Salvan, 132 AD2d 662 [1987]). Further, there was no showing that the acrimony between the parties would interfere with the proper administration of the estate (cf. Matter of Sadowski, 21 AD3d 1034 [2005]; Matter of Rad, 162 Misc 2d 229 [1994]). Thus, the respondent had a mandatory priority to receive the letters of administration (see SCPA 1001 [a]; Matter of Salvan, supra). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 639, 817 N.Y.S.2d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-kopko-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack