In re the Estate of Laflin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Laflin

105 A.D.2d 747, 481 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20859

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 747 (In re the Estate of Laflin) 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 Laflin, 105 A.D.2d 747, 481 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for the judicial settlement of the account of the executors of a decedent’s estate, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated April 20,1984, which granted the objectant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd [a], par [4]) and CPLR 3107 to direct a nonparty witness to appear at the Surrogate’s Court for an examination before trial.

Order affirmed with costs, payable by appellant.

The showing by objectant’s counsel that he needed the witness’ pretrial deposition in order to prepare fully for trial suffices as a “special circumstance” pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd [a], par [4]) (see Wiseman v American Motors Sales Corp., 103 AD2d 230; Gersten v New York Hosp., 81 AD2d 632; Kelly v Shafiroff, 80 AD2d 601). Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the objectant’s motion and directing the nonparty witness to appear for an examination before trial. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding for the judicial settlement of the account of the executors of a decedent’s estate, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated April 20,1984, which granted the objectant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd [a], par [4]) and CPLR 3107 to direct a nonparty witness to appear at the Surrogate’s Court for an examination before trial.

Order affirmed with costs, payable by appellant.

The showing by objectant’s counsel that he needed the witness’ pretrial deposition in order to prepare fully for trial suffices as a “special circumstance” pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd [a], par [4]) (see Wiseman v American Motors Sales Corp., 103 AD2d 230; Gersten v New York Hosp., 81 AD2d 632; Kelly v Shafiroff, 80 AD2d 601). Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the objectant’s motion and directing the nonparty witness to appear for an examination before trial. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 747, 481 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-laflin-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack