In re the Estate of Lederer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Lederer

254 A.D.2d 489, 679 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11257

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re the Estate of Lederer. Read the opinion of the Court — 225 A.D.2d 395 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 26, 1998·Published

Opinion

In a turnover proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103, (1) Mary Ann Pistilli appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Nahman, S.), dated September 2, 1997, which, inter alia, denied her motion to renew the petitioner’s prior motion for summary judgment which was granted by order dated April 17, 1995, and (2) Frank Pistilli appeals from an order of the same court, dated December 11, 1997, which denied his separate motion to renew the petitioner’s prior motion for summary judgment which was granted by the order dated April 17, 1995.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Surrogate’s Court properly denied the appellants’ respective motions to renew on the basis of “newly-discovered evidence”. The appellants failed to proffer any evidence that the purported new evidence could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence (see, Structural Concrete Corp. v Campbell Assocs. Corp., 224 AD2d 516).

[490]*490The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In a turnover proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103, (1) Mary Ann Pistilli appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Nahman, S.), dated September 2, 1997, which, inter alia, denied her motion to renew the petitioner’s prior motion for summary judgment which was granted by order dated April 17, 1995, and (2) Frank Pistilli appeals from an order of the same court, dated December 11, 1997, which denied his separate motion to renew the petitioner’s prior motion for summary judgment which was granted by the order dated April 17, 1995.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Surrogate’s Court properly denied the appellants’ respective motions to renew on the basis of “newly-discovered evidence”. The appellants failed to proffer any evidence that the purported new evidence could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence (see, Structural Concrete Corp. v Campbell Assocs. Corp., 224 AD2d 516).

[490]*490The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

In re the Estate of Lederer, 254 A.D.2d 489, 679 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

254 A.D.2d 489 (In re the Estate of Lederer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related