In re the Estate of Schulman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Schulman

33 A.D.2d 666, 305 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2863

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 666 (In re the Estate of Schulman) 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 Schulman, 33 A.D.2d 666, 305 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree entered April 14, 1969, reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs to abide the event. The Surrogate’s finding In this discovery proceeding (SCPA 2103) that petitioner failed to establish that she is entitled to any property in respondent’s possession, is against the weight of the credible evidence. In our view petitioner’s proof was sufficient to raise an issue of title to the money and other personal property described in the petition. Respondent is, therefore, directed to serve and file an answer (see SCPA 2104). In the interests of the administration of justice the issue thus raised is to be tried in the Supreme Court, Bronx County (N. V. Const., art. VI, § 19, subd. a) where there is said to be (respondent’s answer) another action pending between the same parties seeking the same relief. If possible, both matters should be either consolidated or jointly tried. Settle order on notice. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Markewich and Nunez) JJ.

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

Decree entered April 14, 1969, reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs to abide the event. The Surrogate’s finding In this discovery proceeding (SCPA 2103) that petitioner failed to establish that she is entitled to any property in respondent’s possession, is against the weight of the credible evidence. In our view petitioner’s proof was sufficient to raise an issue of title to the money and other personal property described in the petition. Respondent is, therefore, directed to serve and file an answer (see SCPA 2104). In the interests of the administration of justice the issue thus raised is to be tried in the Supreme Court, Bronx County (N. V. Const., art. VI, § 19, subd. a) where there is said to be (respondent’s answer) another action pending between the same parties seeking the same relief. If possible, both matters should be either consolidated or jointly tried. Settle order on notice. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Markewich and Nunez) JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 666, 305 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-schulman-nyappdiv-1969.