In re the Estate of Lance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Lance

26 A.D.3d 244, 810 N.Y.S.2d 44

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 244 (In re the Estate of Lance) 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 Lance, 26 A.D.3d 244, 810 N.Y.S.2d 44 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee R. Roth, S.), entered on or about August 15, 2005, which denied confirmation of the referee’s report and remanded the matter for a new hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent was the longtime secretary of the intestate decedent. The record does not indicate that the referee or counsel for petitioner-administrator of the estate ever notified her of the scheduled trial date in writing, and neither she nor her counsel appeared. The court’s rejection of the judicial hearing officer’s report at inquest was warranted on this ground alone. In addition, there were no findings of fact in the report (see SCPA 506 [1]) on which to base the conclusion that respondent had misappropriated $3,174,951.74 worth of estate assets. A referee’s report is without legal effect until it is adopted by the court, which retains the authority to confirm or reject that report in whole or in part, make new findings with or without taking additional testimony, or order a new reference (SCPA [245]*245506 [4]). It was thus within the court’s discretion to reject this report and remand the matter for a new hearing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee R. Roth, S.), entered on or about August 15, 2005, which denied confirmation of the referee’s report and remanded the matter for a new hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent was the longtime secretary of the intestate decedent. The record does not indicate that the referee or counsel for petitioner-administrator of the estate ever notified her of the scheduled trial date in writing, and neither she nor her counsel appeared. The court’s rejection of the judicial hearing officer’s report at inquest was warranted on this ground alone. In addition, there were no findings of fact in the report (see SCPA 506 [1]) on which to base the conclusion that respondent had misappropriated $3,174,951.74 worth of estate assets. A referee’s report is without legal effect until it is adopted by the court, which retains the authority to confirm or reject that report in whole or in part, make new findings with or without taking additional testimony, or order a new reference (SCPA [245]*245506 [4]). It was thus within the court’s discretion to reject this report and remand the matter for a new hearing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 244, 810 N.Y.S.2d 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-lance-nyappdiv-2006.