In re the Estate of Meade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Meade

224 A.D.2d 429, 638 N.Y.S.2d 330

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 5, 1996·Published

Opinion

—In a proceeding for an accounting, the executor of the estate of Elizabeth G. Meade appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Nahman, S.), dated May 16, 1994, which, inter alia, denied her motion for reargument and for vacatur of her default.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied reargument is dismissed since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

Because the appellant failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for her default, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate the default (see, Tortorello v Tortorello, 161 AD2d 633; Smith v Fritz, 148 AD2d 438).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Hart, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding for an accounting, the executor of the estate of Elizabeth G. Meade appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Nahman, S.), dated May 16, 1994, which, inter alia, denied her motion for reargument and for vacatur of her default.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied reargument is dismissed since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

Because the appellant failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for her default, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate the default (see, Tortorello v Tortorello, 161 AD2d 633; Smith v Fritz, 148 AD2d 438).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Hart, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

In re the Estate of Meade, 224 A.D.2d 429, 638 N.Y.S.2d 330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

224 A.D.2d 429 (In re the Estate of Meade) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related