In re the Estate of Sonderegger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Sonderegger

262 A.D.2d 145, 692 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6712

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

DecidedJune 15, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 145 (In re the Estate of Sonderegger) 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 Sonderegger, 262 A.D.2d 145, 692 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Final decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered August 26, 1998, which, upon the prior denial as untimely of obj ectants-appellants’ motion to modify the reports of the Referee and confirmation of said reports, inter alia, settled the account of the co-executors, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Surrogate properly denied as untimely objectants’ motion to modify the Referee’s report inasmuch as their motion was made some 11 months, and, accordingly, not within the statutorily allotted 60 days, after “service of notice of the filing of the report” (SCPA 506 [4]). Moreover, even if objectants’ motion had not been time-barred, it would have been properly denied on the merits. The co-executors’ delay in liquidating the estate’s real estate asset was justified in light of the numerous complications involved in its sale, including the presence of several SRO tenants upon the premises, and in light of the circumstance that advance distributions were made to object-ants in excess of the amounts to which they were entitled under the subject will. We have considered and rejected objectants’ remaining arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Final decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered August 26, 1998, which, upon the prior denial as untimely of obj ectants-appellants’ motion to modify the reports of the Referee and confirmation of said reports, inter alia, settled the account of the co-executors, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Surrogate properly denied as untimely objectants’ motion to modify the Referee’s report inasmuch as their motion was made some 11 months, and, accordingly, not within the statutorily allotted 60 days, after “service of notice of the filing of the report” (SCPA 506 [4]). Moreover, even if objectants’ motion had not been time-barred, it would have been properly denied on the merits. The co-executors’ delay in liquidating the estate’s real estate asset was justified in light of the numerous complications involved in its sale, including the presence of several SRO tenants upon the premises, and in light of the circumstance that advance distributions were made to object-ants in excess of the amounts to which they were entitled under the subject will. We have considered and rejected objectants’ remaining arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 145, 692 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-sonderegger-nyappdiv-1999.