In re the Estate of Matthews

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Matthews

266 A.D.2d 290, 698 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11315

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 290 (In re the Estate of Matthews) 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 Matthews, 266 A.D.2d 290, 698 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to settle an interim trust accounting, G.F. Robert Hanke appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated September 1, 1998, as granted the motion of the respondents G.F. Robert Hanke, Jr., and John V. Hanke, to compel the production of documents and denied his cross motion for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs payable to the appellant by the respondents-respondents, the motion is denied, and the cross motion is granted.

It is well settled that there shall be full disclosure of all evidence, or information leading to evidence, that is material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action regardless of the burden of proof (see, CPLR 3101 [a]; Northway Eng’g v Felix Indus., 77 NY2d 332). Here, however, the banking information concerning the appellant’s accounts at the petitioner trustee Bank of New York is neither material nor relevant to the determination of whether the trustees behaved improperly in distributing the trust funds. Joy, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to settle an interim trust accounting, G.F. Robert Hanke appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated September 1, 1998, as granted the motion of the respondents G.F. Robert Hanke, Jr., and John V. Hanke, to compel the production of documents and denied his cross motion for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs payable to the appellant by the respondents-respondents, the motion is denied, and the cross motion is granted.

It is well settled that there shall be full disclosure of all evidence, or information leading to evidence, that is material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action regardless of the burden of proof (see, CPLR 3101 [a]; Northway Eng’g v Felix Indus., 77 NY2d 332). Here, however, the banking information concerning the appellant’s accounts at the petitioner trustee Bank of New York is neither material nor relevant to the determination of whether the trustees behaved improperly in distributing the trust funds. Joy, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 290, 698 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-matthews-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack