In re the Estate of La Porto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of La Porto

30 A.D.2d 647, 291 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3768

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

DecidedJune 11, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 647 (In re the Estate of La Porto) 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 La Porto, 30 A.D.2d 647, 291 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the matter remanded to the Surrogate for the taking of additional proof, if any, with $50 costs and disbursements to both appellant and respondents payable out of the estate. The record in its present form is deficient in acceptable evidence proving the existence of the Mexican divorce decree. Apart from unexplained failure to produce a copy of the decree from an official Mexican source, it is noted, for example, that the third wife of Melchiore Santella, although living and within the jurisdiction, was not subpoenaed, and that Thomas Santella, who to some extent assisted in the divorce arrangements, made no mention of a journey by his father to Mexico [648]*648(see Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 16 N Y 2d 64). In the exercise of discretion we deem it appropriate to afford respondents an opportunity to supplement their proof in such respects as they may be advised. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.

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

Decree unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the matter remanded to the Surrogate for the taking of additional proof, if any, with $50 costs and disbursements to both appellant and respondents payable out of the estate. The record in its present form is deficient in acceptable evidence proving the existence of the Mexican divorce decree. Apart from unexplained failure to produce a copy of the decree from an official Mexican source, it is noted, for example, that the third wife of Melchiore Santella, although living and within the jurisdiction, was not subpoenaed, and that Thomas Santella, who to some extent assisted in the divorce arrangements, made no mention of a journey by his father to Mexico [648]*648(see Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 16 N Y 2d 64). In the exercise of discretion we deem it appropriate to afford respondents an opportunity to supplement their proof in such respects as they may be advised. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 647, 291 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-la-porto-nyappdiv-1968.