In re the Estate of Riebe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Riebe

186 A.D.2d 807, 589 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12214

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 807 (In re the Estate of Riebe) 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 Riebe, 186 A.D.2d 807, 589 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding for judicial settlement of an account, the distributees Eleanor R. Bohlman and Frederick C. Riebe separately appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Snellenberg, S.), entered July 13, 1990, which judicially settled and allowed the final account filed in the Estate of Hilda K. Riebe, deceased.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants personally.

[808]*808Acting Surrogate Snellenberg correctly denied the objections of the appellants as unintelligible (see, CPLR 3013), failing to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), or barred by the defenses of release or res judicata (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding for judicial settlement of an account, the distributees Eleanor R. Bohlman and Frederick C. Riebe separately appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Snellenberg, S.), entered July 13, 1990, which judicially settled and allowed the final account filed in the Estate of Hilda K. Riebe, deceased.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants personally.

[808]*808Acting Surrogate Snellenberg correctly denied the objections of the appellants as unintelligible (see, CPLR 3013), failing to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), or barred by the defenses of release or res judicata (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 807, 589 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-riebe-nyappdiv-1992.