In re the Estate of Rothko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Rothko

42 A.D.2d 558, 345 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4014

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

DecidedJune 28, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 558 (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, 42 A.D.2d 558, 345 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4014 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County, entered April 5, 1973, denying motion of Attorney-General for protective order and granting cross motion directing examination of Attorney-General, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and cross petitioner appellant’s motion for a protective order vacating the notices to examine him granted, and the cross motion denied. Cross petitioner appellant shall recover of respondents-respondents Reis and Stamos and The Mark Rothko Foundation, Inc., $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In this proceeding to remove executors it is sought to examine the Attorney-General by his assistant in charge of the matter as an adverse party. While nominally a party, in fact the Attorney-General appears only as the statutory representative of ultimate beneficiaries of charitable bequests under the will (EPTL 8-1.1, subd. [f]). As such, he may be examined only upon a showing of special or unusual circumstances and none are demonstrated (People v. Volkswagen of Amer. 41 A D 2d 827). Concur — Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lane, Tilzer and Macken, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County, entered April 5, 1973, denying motion of Attorney-General for protective order and granting cross motion directing examination of Attorney-General, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and cross petitioner appellant’s motion for a protective order vacating the notices to examine him granted, and the cross motion denied. Cross petitioner appellant shall recover of respondents-respondents Reis and Stamos and The Mark Rothko Foundation, Inc., $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In this proceeding to remove executors it is sought to examine the Attorney-General by his assistant in charge of the matter as an adverse party. While nominally a party, in fact the Attorney-General appears only as the statutory representative of ultimate beneficiaries of charitable bequests under the will (EPTL 8-1.1, subd. [f]). As such, he may be examined only upon a showing of special or unusual circumstances and none are demonstrated (People v. Volkswagen of Amer. 41 A D 2d 827). Concur — Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lane, Tilzer and Macken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 558, 345 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-rothko-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack