In re the Estate of Stern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Stern

282 A.D. 662, 122 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4573

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

DecidedJune 9, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 662 (In re the Estate of Stern) 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 Stern, 282 A.D. 662, 122 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to petitioner-respondent. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Breitel, JJ.; Peck, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse and dismiss the petition in the following memorandum: Although phrased as a [663]*663discovery proceeding under section 205 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, it appears that what is sought in this ease and what remains after the denial of an examination as to the savings bank books, is an accounting of the relationship and transactions between decedent and respondent over a period of years. Such an inquiry is not, in my opinion, within the proper scope of a discovery proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court. Settle order on notice. [See post, p. 761.]

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

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to petitioner-respondent. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Breitel, JJ.; Peck, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse and dismiss the petition in the following memorandum: Although phrased as a [663]*663discovery proceeding under section 205 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, it appears that what is sought in this ease and what remains after the denial of an examination as to the savings bank books, is an accounting of the relationship and transactions between decedent and respondent over a period of years. Such an inquiry is not, in my opinion, within the proper scope of a discovery proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court. Settle order on notice. [See post, p. 761.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 662, 122 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-stern-nyappdiv-1953.