In re the Estate of Poulos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Poulos

297 A.D.2d 609, 748 N.Y.2d 239, 748 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8838

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 609 (In re the Estate of Poulos) 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 Poulos, 297 A.D.2d 609, 748 N.Y.2d 239, 748 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

By order entered February 13, 2001, this Court affirmed the final decree and the Surrogate’s April 4, 2000 order discharging appellant as coexecutor (280 AD2d 336), and by order entered April 10, 2001 (M-1438, 2001 NY App Div LEXIS 3720), this Court denied appellant’s motion for leave to reargue or to appeal to the Court of Appeals, foreclosing further challenges by appellant to the final decree. This latest motion does not appear to be based on any new evidence, but is, as the Surrogate described it, simply another instance of appellant’s “continuing refusal to accept the Court’s decision rendered in connection with the accounting proceeding, notwithstanding that he has exhausted all avenues of appeal.” We would add that there is no merit to appellant’s claims regarding the sufficiency of the estate’s assets. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

By order entered February 13, 2001, this Court affirmed the final decree and the Surrogate’s April 4, 2000 order discharging appellant as coexecutor (280 AD2d 336), and by order entered April 10, 2001 (M-1438, 2001 NY App Div LEXIS 3720), this Court denied appellant’s motion for leave to reargue or to appeal to the Court of Appeals, foreclosing further challenges by appellant to the final decree. This latest motion does not appear to be based on any new evidence, but is, as the Surrogate described it, simply another instance of appellant’s “continuing refusal to accept the Court’s decision rendered in connection with the accounting proceeding, notwithstanding that he has exhausted all avenues of appeal.” We would add that there is no merit to appellant’s claims regarding the sufficiency of the estate’s assets. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 609, 748 N.Y.2d 239, 748 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-poulos-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack