In re the Estate of Marsh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Marsh

6 A.D.3d 362, 775 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5047

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

DecidedApril 29, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 362 (In re the Estate of Marsh) 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 Marsh, 6 A.D.3d 362, 775 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered December 24, 2002, which denied the motion of Julie D. Lefkowitz to vacate the accounting decree entered November 19, 2002, unanimously dismissed, with separate bills of costs payable by appellant.

The purported appellant, Adrienne Marsh Lefkowitz, not having joined in the motion to vacate the subject accounting decree and never having been substituted for the movant, is not a proper appellant (see CPLR 5511). We note, in any case, that the movant, Julie D. Lefkowitz, elected not to formally appear in the accounting proceeding (see SCPA 401 [2]), and was thus without standing to bring the motion in the first instance. Concur—Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered December 24, 2002, which denied the motion of Julie D. Lefkowitz to vacate the accounting decree entered November 19, 2002, unanimously dismissed, with separate bills of costs payable by appellant.

The purported appellant, Adrienne Marsh Lefkowitz, not having joined in the motion to vacate the subject accounting decree and never having been substituted for the movant, is not a proper appellant (see CPLR 5511). We note, in any case, that the movant, Julie D. Lefkowitz, elected not to formally appear in the accounting proceeding (see SCPA 401 [2]), and was thus without standing to bring the motion in the first instance. Concur—Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 362, 775 N.Y.S.2d 846, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-marsh-nyappdiv-2004.