In re the Estate of Rosenhain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Rosenhain

139 A.D.2d 869, 527 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4703

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

DecidedApril 28, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 A.D.2d 869 (In re the Estate of Rosenhain) 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 Rosenhain, 139 A.D.2d 869, 527 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Delaware County (Estes, S.), entered January 26, 1987, which, inter alia, permitted respondent to resign as executor of the estate and appointed petitioner as successor executrix.

The decree appealed from expressly recites that, pursuant to a stipulation placed on the record, petitioner withdrew both the petition to remove respondent as executor and any objections to the resignation petition of respondent. We agree with respondent’s contention that this appeal must therefore be dismissed (see, Matter of Pulver, 86 AD2d 705). Having received precisely what she stipulated to, petitioner is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of CPLR 5511 (see, Tongue v Tongue, 61 NY2d 809, 810). Petitioner’s remedy for relief from the consequences of her stipulation is not by way of a direct appeal from the decree entered pursuant to that stipulation (see, Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51).

Appeal dismissed, with costs. Casey, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Harvey and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Delaware County (Estes, S.), entered January 26, 1987, which, inter alia, permitted respondent to resign as executor of the estate and appointed petitioner as successor executrix.

The decree appealed from expressly recites that, pursuant to a stipulation placed on the record, petitioner withdrew both the petition to remove respondent as executor and any objections to the resignation petition of respondent. We agree with respondent’s contention that this appeal must therefore be dismissed (see, Matter of Pulver, 86 AD2d 705). Having received precisely what she stipulated to, petitioner is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of CPLR 5511 (see, Tongue v Tongue, 61 NY2d 809, 810). Petitioner’s remedy for relief from the consequences of her stipulation is not by way of a direct appeal from the decree entered pursuant to that stipulation (see, Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51).

Appeal dismissed, with costs. Casey, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Harvey and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 869, 527 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-rosenhain-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack