In re the Estate of Tarka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Tarka

41 A.D.3d 345, 837 N.Y.S.2d 571

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

DecidedJune 28, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 345 (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, 41 A.D.3d 345, 837 N.Y.S.2d 571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee R. Roth, S.), entered April 6, 2006, which granted the petition for letters of administration with respect to the goods, chattels and credits of decedent Mark Tarka, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent, who was long estranged from her deceased brother, objects to the grant of letters of administration to the Public Administrator. However, the Surrogate’s Court appropriately exercised its broad discretionary authority (see Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518 [1995]) in finding respondent herself ineligible to serve as a fiduciary of this estate, in view of her history, inter alia, of noncompliance with judicial directives (see SCPA 707 [1] [e]).

We have considered respondent’s arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee R. Roth, S.), entered April 6, 2006, which granted the petition for letters of administration with respect to the goods, chattels and credits of decedent Mark Tarka, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent, who was long estranged from her deceased brother, objects to the grant of letters of administration to the Public Administrator. However, the Surrogate’s Court appropriately exercised its broad discretionary authority (see Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518 [1995]) in finding respondent herself ineligible to serve as a fiduciary of this estate, in view of her history, inter alia, of noncompliance with judicial directives (see SCPA 707 [1] [e]).

We have considered respondent’s arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 345, 837 N.Y.S.2d 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-tarka-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack