In re the Estate of Reichberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Reichberg

283 A.D.2d 650, 725 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5502

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 650 (In re the Estate of Reichberg) 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 Reichberg, 283 A.D.2d 650, 725 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to settle the account of the co-executors of the estate of David Reichberg, the objectants appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated August 7, 2000, which granted the co-executors’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to the extent of awarding the co-executors an attorney’s fee in the amount of $4,750 due to the objectants’ failure to proceed with pretrial disclosure.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The award to the co-executors of an attorney’s fee was appropriate due to the failure of the appellant Gregory Reichberg to appear for two scheduled depositions (see, Smith v New York Tel. Co., 235 AD2d 529; Barbiere v Motamed, 209 AD2d 368).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to settle the account of the co-executors of the estate of David Reichberg, the objectants appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated August 7, 2000, which granted the co-executors’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to the extent of awarding the co-executors an attorney’s fee in the amount of $4,750 due to the objectants’ failure to proceed with pretrial disclosure.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The award to the co-executors of an attorney’s fee was appropriate due to the failure of the appellant Gregory Reichberg to appear for two scheduled depositions (see, Smith v New York Tel. Co., 235 AD2d 529; Barbiere v Motamed, 209 AD2d 368).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 650, 725 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-reichberg-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack