In re the Estate of Schuster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Schuster

55 A.D.2d 957, 391 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10255

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 957 (In re the Estate of Schuster) 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 Schuster, 55 A.D.2d 957, 391 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10255 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding, in which the proponent and contestant stipulated to have the court construe the will to determine whom the testatrix intended to name as executor, the contestant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, dated September 3, 1976, as named the proponent as executor of the estate. Decree affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent payable personally by appellant. Both the will and the circumstances existing at the time of the testatrix’ death, support the Surrogate’s determination that the proponent was intended by the testatrix to be executor of the estate. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

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

In a probate proceeding, in which the proponent and contestant stipulated to have the court construe the will to determine whom the testatrix intended to name as executor, the contestant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, dated September 3, 1976, as named the proponent as executor of the estate. Decree affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent payable personally by appellant. Both the will and the circumstances existing at the time of the testatrix’ death, support the Surrogate’s determination that the proponent was intended by the testatrix to be executor of the estate. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 957, 391 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-schuster-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack