In re the Estate of Tarka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Tarka

268 A.D.2d 396, 700 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 777

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 396 (In re the Estate of Tarka) 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 Tarka, 268 A.D.2d 396, 700 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about December 3, 1998, which denied petitioner’s motion to vacate the note of issue and compel further discovery in a proceeding to fix fees for legal services rendered, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[397]*397Petitioner’s arguments concerning the note of issue procedure in Surrogate’s Court are without merit and her claim that the certificate of readiness should have been vacated because it contains misstatements is based upon her subjective view of the adequacy of respondent’s interrogatory answers and is not supported by the record, a review of which discloses that the Surrogate properly exercised her discretion in determining that discovery in the instant matter had been completed (see, Kaplan v Herbstein, 175 AD2d 200).

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, 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 December 3, 1998, which denied petitioner’s motion to vacate the note of issue and compel further discovery in a proceeding to fix fees for legal services rendered, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[397]*397Petitioner’s arguments concerning the note of issue procedure in Surrogate’s Court are without merit and her claim that the certificate of readiness should have been vacated because it contains misstatements is based upon her subjective view of the adequacy of respondent’s interrogatory answers and is not supported by the record, a review of which discloses that the Surrogate properly exercised her discretion in determining that discovery in the instant matter had been completed (see, Kaplan v Herbstein, 175 AD2d 200).

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 396, 700 N.Y.S.2d 836, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-tarka-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack