In re the Estate of Sherry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Sherry

222 A.D.2d 681, 636 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13983

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 681 (In re the Estate of Sherry) 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 Sherry, 222 A.D.2d 681, 636 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to judicially settle an executrix’s account of her stewardship, in which the decedent’s spouse moved, inter alia, to rescind a voucher and release waiver executed by her and to file objections to the account, the spouse appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s [682]*682Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated May 4, 1994, as, after a nonjury trial, found the voucher and release waiver to be a binding contract settling all of the spouse’s claims against the estate, and dismissed the spouse’s objections to the judicial settlement of the executrix’s account.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Surrogate’s determination that the voucher and release waiver was predicated upon a binding contract entered into between the appellant, the decedent’s spouse, and his estate. The evidence adduced at the trial indicates that the executrix of the estate made an unqualified offer to settle all of the appellant’s claims for $10,000 and that she unconditionally accepted that offer. Such an offer and acceptance produces a binding contract (see, Barber-Greene Co. v M.F. Dollard, Jr., Inc., 239 App Div 655, affd 267 NY 545; 21 NY Jur 2d, Contracts, § 6).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to judicially settle an executrix’s account of her stewardship, in which the decedent’s spouse moved, inter alia, to rescind a voucher and release waiver executed by her and to file objections to the account, the spouse appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s [682]*682Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated May 4, 1994, as, after a nonjury trial, found the voucher and release waiver to be a binding contract settling all of the spouse’s claims against the estate, and dismissed the spouse’s objections to the judicial settlement of the executrix’s account.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Surrogate’s determination that the voucher and release waiver was predicated upon a binding contract entered into between the appellant, the decedent’s spouse, and his estate. The evidence adduced at the trial indicates that the executrix of the estate made an unqualified offer to settle all of the appellant’s claims for $10,000 and that she unconditionally accepted that offer. Such an offer and acceptance produces a binding contract (see, Barber-Greene Co. v M.F. Dollard, Jr., Inc., 239 App Div 655, affd 267 NY 545; 21 NY Jur 2d, Contracts, § 6).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 681, 636 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-sherry-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack