In re the Estate of Stanley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Stanley

261 A.D.2d 244, 700 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5480

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

DecidedMay 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 244 (In re the Estate of Stanley) 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 Stanley, 261 A.D.2d 244, 700 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about April 3, 1998, which denied appellant’s application for monetary sanctions against petitioner, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The denial of sanctions under 22 NYCRR Part 130 was proper under the circumstances (see, Matter of Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 411, 414). Because appellant did not appeal from the Surrogate’s earlier order denying his requests for affirmative relief, we do not reach any argument that such relief should have been granted. Were we to reach appellant’s arguments on those points, we would find them unavailing (see also, Matter of Stanley, 261 AD2d 243 [decided herewith]). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about April 3, 1998, which denied appellant’s application for monetary sanctions against petitioner, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The denial of sanctions under 22 NYCRR Part 130 was proper under the circumstances (see, Matter of Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway, 76 NY2d 411, 414). Because appellant did not appeal from the Surrogate’s earlier order denying his requests for affirmative relief, we do not reach any argument that such relief should have been granted. Were we to reach appellant’s arguments on those points, we would find them unavailing (see also, Matter of Stanley, 261 AD2d 243 [decided herewith]). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 244, 700 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-stanley-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack