In re the Estate of Minkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Minkin

8 A.D.2d 606, 184 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9122

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

DecidedApril 21, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 606 (In re the Estate of Minkin) 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 Minkin, 8 A.D.2d 606, 184 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree unanimously modified, on the facts and on the law, to the extent of substituting the sum of $10,000 for the sum of $7,000, provided therein and as modified is affirmed, without costs. The parties concede that the total sum involved is $10,000. The Surrogate found that a gift had not been established and his determination was fully justified by the proof. In the light of the Surrogate’s finding, it was error to direct the return of only $7,000 out of the total of $10,000, admittedly received by the respondent. Even if we assume that it was error for the Surrogate to have directed the return of the money at the termination of the inquisitorial stage of the proceeding, that error was cured when the respondent by his amended answer, alleged and then undertook to prove the receipt of the funds as a gift. This determination is, of course, without prejudice to the right of the respondent to prove his claim for the recovery of sums allegedly disbursed for and on behalf of the deceased. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, M. M. Frank, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Decree unanimously modified, on the facts and on the law, to the extent of substituting the sum of $10,000 for the sum of $7,000, provided therein and as modified is affirmed, without costs. The parties concede that the total sum involved is $10,000. The Surrogate found that a gift had not been established and his determination was fully justified by the proof. In the light of the Surrogate’s finding, it was error to direct the return of only $7,000 out of the total of $10,000, admittedly received by the respondent. Even if we assume that it was error for the Surrogate to have directed the return of the money at the termination of the inquisitorial stage of the proceeding, that error was cured when the respondent by his amended answer, alleged and then undertook to prove the receipt of the funds as a gift. This determination is, of course, without prejudice to the right of the respondent to prove his claim for the recovery of sums allegedly disbursed for and on behalf of the deceased. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, M. M. Frank, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 606, 184 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-minkin-nyappdiv-1959.