In re the Estate of Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Thompson

232 A.D.2d 219, 647 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10037

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 219 (In re the Estate of Thompson) 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 Thompson, 232 A.D.2d 219, 647 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10037 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered April 26, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, denied appellant’s cross petition for letters of administration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although, in most circumstances, the testatrix has the right to determine who was most suitable among those legally qualified to settle her affairs, and her selection is not to he lightly discarded (Matter of Flood, 236 NY 408, 410, quoting Matter of Leland, 219 NY 387, 392), it is well settled that the Surrogate may disqualify a person from receiving letters of administration where the friction between such a person and a beneficiary or cofiduciaries interferes with the proper administration of the estate, and future cooperation is unlikely (Matter of Jurzykowski, 36 AD2d 488, affd 30 NY2d 510; see also, Matter of Lipsit, 50 Misc 2d 289, 293, citing, inter alia, Quackenboss v [220]*220Southwick, 41 NY 117). The Surrogate’s finding of such hostility here is amply supported by the record.

The unpublished decision and order of this Court entered herein on September 24, 1996 is hereby recalled and vacated. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Rubin and Nardelli, 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 Roth, S.), entered April 26, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, denied appellant’s cross petition for letters of administration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although, in most circumstances, the testatrix has the right to determine who was most suitable among those legally qualified to settle her affairs, and her selection is not to he lightly discarded (Matter of Flood, 236 NY 408, 410, quoting Matter of Leland, 219 NY 387, 392), it is well settled that the Surrogate may disqualify a person from receiving letters of administration where the friction between such a person and a beneficiary or cofiduciaries interferes with the proper administration of the estate, and future cooperation is unlikely (Matter of Jurzykowski, 36 AD2d 488, affd 30 NY2d 510; see also, Matter of Lipsit, 50 Misc 2d 289, 293, citing, inter alia, Quackenboss v [220]*220Southwick, 41 NY 117). The Surrogate’s finding of such hostility here is amply supported by the record.

The unpublished decision and order of this Court entered herein on September 24, 1996 is hereby recalled and vacated. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 219, 647 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-thompson-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack