In re the Estate of Pellegrino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Pellegrino

201 A.D.2d 653, 609 N.Y.S.2d 820

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 653 (In re the Estate of Pellegrino) 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 Pellegrino, 201 A.D.2d 653, 609 N.Y.S.2d 820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding, the objectant appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, [654]*654Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated February 14, 1992, which denied her motion, denominated as a motion to "renew and reargue” a prior motion to vacate a decree admitting the will to probate upon her default in appearing for trial, which was denied by an order of the same court, dated August 1, 1991.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

The Surrogate accurately noted that the objectant’s motion, characterized as one "to renew and reargue”, was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion. Under these circumstances, this Court has held that such a motion is actually a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, e.g., Mgrditchian v Donato, 141 AD2d 513; Matter of Bosco, 141 AD2d 639; Matter of Kadish v Colombo, 121 AD2d 722). Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

In a probate proceeding, the objectant appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, [654]*654Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated February 14, 1992, which denied her motion, denominated as a motion to "renew and reargue” a prior motion to vacate a decree admitting the will to probate upon her default in appearing for trial, which was denied by an order of the same court, dated August 1, 1991.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

The Surrogate accurately noted that the objectant’s motion, characterized as one "to renew and reargue”, was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion. Under these circumstances, this Court has held that such a motion is actually a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, e.g., Mgrditchian v Donato, 141 AD2d 513; Matter of Bosco, 141 AD2d 639; Matter of Kadish v Colombo, 121 AD2d 722). Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 653, 609 N.Y.S.2d 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-pellegrino-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack