In re the Estate of Moczulski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Moczulski

167 A.D.2d 578, 562 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13038

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 1, 1990·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order and decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Albany County (Marinelli, S.), entered September 25, 1989, which, inter alia, admitted to probate an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of decedent.

Since respondent had already been granted several adjournments of his trial, including one for receipt of a handwriting expert’s report and another to retain new counsel, Surrogate’s Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the objections and granting probate of the will in question (see, Scarola v St. Vincent’s Med. Center, 154 AD2d 364; Matter of Alario v DeMarco, 149 AD2d 587, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 791). That respondent’s rights to proceed were diligently protected by the court are evidenced in the fact that the court stayed its final order for seven days to allow respondent one final opportunity to proceed to trial. However, at the end of that time he was still not prepared to go forward.

Order and decree affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order and decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Albany County (Marinelli, S.), entered September 25, 1989, which, inter alia, admitted to probate an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of decedent.

Since respondent had already been granted several adjournments of his trial, including one for receipt of a handwriting expert’s report and another to retain new counsel, Surrogate’s Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the objections and granting probate of the will in question (see, Scarola v St. Vincent’s Med. Center, 154 AD2d 364; Matter of Alario v DeMarco, 149 AD2d 587, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 791). That respondent’s rights to proceed were diligently protected by the court are evidenced in the fact that the court stayed its final order for seven days to allow respondent one final opportunity to proceed to trial. However, at the end of that time he was still not prepared to go forward.

Order and decree affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

In re the Estate of Moczulski, 167 A.D.2d 578, 562 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

167 A.D.2d 578 (In re the Estate of Moczulski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related