In re the Estate of Rothko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Rothko

40 A.D.2d 965, 338 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 965 (In re the Estate of Rothko) 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 Rothko, 40 A.D.2d 965, 338 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County, entered on September 27, 1972, granting preliminary injunction as to further implementation of contract with Marlborough respondents, and providing procedures for authorized sales, and for a $20,000 undertaking, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to extent of increasing bond to the sum of $50,000 as in accordance with terms of interim order, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In view of the duality of positions of two of the executors, we [966]*966deem it not improper to leave the temporary injunction undisturbed. An early trial, however, is clearly indicated. Concur — McGivern, J., P., Markewich, Nunez, Kupferman and Murphy, JJ. [71 Misc 2d 320.]

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County, entered on September 27, 1972, granting preliminary injunction as to further implementation of contract with Marlborough respondents, and providing procedures for authorized sales, and for a $20,000 undertaking, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to extent of increasing bond to the sum of $50,000 as in accordance with terms of interim order, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In view of the duality of positions of two of the executors, we [966]*966deem it not improper to leave the temporary injunction undisturbed. An early trial, however, is clearly indicated. Concur — McGivern, J., P., Markewich, Nunez, Kupferman and Murphy, JJ. [71 Misc 2d 320.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 965, 338 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-rothko-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack