In re the Estate of Nicklis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Nicklis

35 A.D.3d 866, 828 N.Y.S.2d 133

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 866 (In re the Estate of Nicklis) 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 Nicklis, 35 A.D.3d 866, 828 N.Y.S.2d 133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated April 27, 2005, as denied those branches of her motion which were to disqualify the respondents from serving as co-executors and co-trustees, for an immediate accounting, and for an award of attorney’s fees.

[867]*867Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the facts of this case, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied that branch of the petitioner’s motion which was to disqualify the respondents from serving as co-executors and co-trustees (see SCPA 711). A testator or testatrix has the right to determine who is most suitable among those legally qualified to settle his or her affairs, and that selection is not to be lightly discarded (see Matter of Venezia, 25 AD3d 717, 718 [2006]). We find no basis to disturb the Surrogate’s Court’s determination.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, PJ., Krausman, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In a probate proceeding, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated April 27, 2005, as denied those branches of her motion which were to disqualify the respondents from serving as co-executors and co-trustees, for an immediate accounting, and for an award of attorney’s fees.

[867]*867Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the facts of this case, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied that branch of the petitioner’s motion which was to disqualify the respondents from serving as co-executors and co-trustees (see SCPA 711). A testator or testatrix has the right to determine who is most suitable among those legally qualified to settle his or her affairs, and that selection is not to be lightly discarded (see Matter of Venezia, 25 AD3d 717, 718 [2006]). We find no basis to disturb the Surrogate’s Court’s determination.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, PJ., Krausman, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 866, 828 N.Y.S.2d 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-nicklis-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack