In re the Estate of Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Rivera

244 A.D.2d 413, 665 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11257

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 413 (In re the Estate of Rivera) 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 Rivera, 244 A.D.2d 413, 665 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to determine the validity of the exercise of a right of election against the decedent’s will, which was settled by stipulation, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Nahman, S.), dated August 29, 1996, which denied the appellant’s motion for a decree declaring that she is “the surviving wife of the decedent for all purposes”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

Since the instant dispute over the distribution of the decedent’s property was settled by stipulation, there is no justiciable controversy which would justify declaratory relief (see, Downe v Rothman, 215 AD2d 716, 717).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to determine the validity of the exercise of a right of election against the decedent’s will, which was settled by stipulation, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Nahman, S.), dated August 29, 1996, which denied the appellant’s motion for a decree declaring that she is “the surviving wife of the decedent for all purposes”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

Since the instant dispute over the distribution of the decedent’s property was settled by stipulation, there is no justiciable controversy which would justify declaratory relief (see, Downe v Rothman, 215 AD2d 716, 717).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 413, 665 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-rivera-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack