In re the Estate of Macku

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Macku

29 A.D.2d 539, 285 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2870

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 539 (In re the Estate of Macku) 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 Macku, 29 A.D.2d 539, 285 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, dated May 2, 1967, affirmed insofar as appealed from and order of said court dated June 27,1967, affirmed, without costs. Ho opinion. Order of said court dated April 12,1967 reversed, without costs, and appellant’s motion to take the deposition of respondent’s attorney, Antonin Tutter, granted. The examination shall be held at Special Term, Part II, of the Supreme Court, Queens County, on a day and hour to be specified in a written 10-days’ notice or at such other place and time as may be agreed upon by the parties. Appeal from order of said court dated August 3, 1967 dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, respondent’s attorney is a hostile witness with knowledge of pertinent facts and petitioner should be permitted to examine him before trial (CPLR 3101, subd. [a], par. [4]; Reif v. Gebel, 246 App. Div. 776; Southbridge Finishing Co. v. Golding, 2 A D 2d 430; Kuzmak v. Atlantic Cement Co., 20 A D 2d 845). Should the examiner improperly seek information regarding privileged matters, the witness may exercise his right to claim privilege. The papers presented upon the motion to reargue or renew which resulted in the order of August 3, 1967 did not offer any new or additional facts; nor was an excuse offered for the failure to present on the original motion the material set forth in these papers. This being so, .the motion is properly treated as one to reargue (10 Carmody-Wait 2d, Hew York Practice, §§ 70:42, 70:43). An order denying reargument is not appealable (Kornstein v. New York Tel. Co., 26 A D 2d 820; H & M Heating Utilities v. Teplitz, 24 A D 2d 468). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, dated May 2, 1967, affirmed insofar as appealed from and order of said court dated June 27,1967, affirmed, without costs. Ho opinion. Order of said court dated April 12,1967 reversed, without costs, and appellant’s motion to take the deposition of respondent’s attorney, Antonin Tutter, granted. The examination shall be held at Special Term, Part II, of the Supreme Court, Queens County, on a day and hour to be specified in a written 10-days’ notice or at such other place and time as may be agreed upon by the parties. Appeal from order of said court dated August 3, 1967 dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, respondent’s attorney is a hostile witness with knowledge of pertinent facts and petitioner should be permitted to examine him before trial (CPLR 3101, subd. [a], par. [4]; Reif v. Gebel, 246 App. Div. 776; Southbridge Finishing Co. v. Golding, 2 A D 2d 430; Kuzmak v. Atlantic Cement Co., 20 A D 2d 845). Should the examiner improperly seek information regarding privileged matters, the witness may exercise his right to claim privilege. The papers presented upon the motion to reargue or renew which resulted in the order of August 3, 1967 did not offer any new or additional facts; nor was an excuse offered for the failure to present on the original motion the material set forth in these papers. This being so, .the motion is properly treated as one to reargue (10 Carmody-Wait 2d, Hew York Practice, §§ 70:42, 70:43). An order denying reargument is not appealable (Kornstein v. New York Tel. Co., 26 A D 2d 820; H & M Heating Utilities v. Teplitz, 24 A D 2d 468). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 539, 285 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-macku-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack