In re the Estate of Lantz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Lantz

182 A.D.2d 452

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

DecidedApril 9, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 452 (In re the Estate of Lantz) 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 Lantz, 182 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Marie M. Lambert, S.), entered on or about December 6, 1990, which, inter alia, removed Constantine Lantz as one of two co-executors of the estate of the deceased, without a hearing, reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for a hearing. Pending the hearing the said Constantine Lantz shall continue as a co-executor of the estate.

The order was made in response to a motion by the co-executor, seeking removal pursuant to SCPA 711 on the grounds that Constantine Lantz had failed adequately to [453]*453account for his actions as directed by the Surrogate’s Court. We find that in the circumstances of this case, Constantine Lantz was entitled to a hearing and to findings concerning the reasons for his removal. We remand accordingly. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Marie M. Lambert, S.), entered on or about December 6, 1990, which, inter alia, removed Constantine Lantz as one of two co-executors of the estate of the deceased, without a hearing, reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for a hearing. Pending the hearing the said Constantine Lantz shall continue as a co-executor of the estate.

The order was made in response to a motion by the co-executor, seeking removal pursuant to SCPA 711 on the grounds that Constantine Lantz had failed adequately to [453]*453account for his actions as directed by the Surrogate’s Court. We find that in the circumstances of this case, Constantine Lantz was entitled to a hearing and to findings concerning the reasons for his removal. We remand accordingly. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-lantz-nyappdiv-1992.