In re the Estate of Palitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Palitz

23 A.D.2d 842, 259 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4122

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

DecidedMay 20, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 842 (In re the Estate of Palitz) 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 Palitz, 23 A.D.2d 842, 259 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered March 22, 1965, denying a motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 and for related relief unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements to any party. In affirming the court does not in this case express approval or disapproval of the general discovery, in effect, of documents produced under subpoena by nonparty witnesses (but see Avila Fabrics V. 152 W. 36th■ St.. Corp., 22 A D 2d 238, 240). The pretrial examinations have been unduly protracted, the original order for the scope and supervision of the examinations by a Referee was never made the subject of an appeal by the present appellant, the Referee ruled on the objections, and the Surrogate in turn confirmed the rulings by the Referee with an extended opinion. Without the showing of any prejudice to appellants or to the nonparty witnesses, or any objection by such witnesses, there is no warrant for this court to provide yet a further review in this overly-litigated matter. As the Surrogate noted, the parties, should complete the examinations as soon as possible “ so that a trial may be had and a determination made in this proceeding which has already been pending for two years.” Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered March 22, 1965, denying a motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 and for related relief unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements to any party. In affirming the court does not in this case express approval or disapproval of the general discovery, in effect, of documents produced under subpoena by nonparty witnesses (but see Avila Fabrics V. 152 W. 36th■ St.. Corp., 22 A D 2d 238, 240). The pretrial examinations have been unduly protracted, the original order for the scope and supervision of the examinations by a Referee was never made the subject of an appeal by the present appellant, the Referee ruled on the objections, and the Surrogate in turn confirmed the rulings by the Referee with an extended opinion. Without the showing of any prejudice to appellants or to the nonparty witnesses, or any objection by such witnesses, there is no warrant for this court to provide yet a further review in this overly-litigated matter. As the Surrogate noted, the parties, should complete the examinations as soon as possible “ so that a trial may be had and a determination made in this proceeding which has already been pending for two years.” Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 842, 259 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-palitz-nyappdiv-1965.