In re the Estate of Torczyner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Torczyner

286 A.D.2d 609, 730 N.Y.S.2d 227, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8576

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 609 (In re the Estate of Torczyner) 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 Torczyner, 286 A.D.2d 609, 730 N.Y.S.2d 227, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8576 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about February 28, 2000, which denied appellant’s motion for leave to file objections to a codicil revoking his appointment as executor of the decedent’s estate, and to conduct discovery in connection therewith, and admitted the subject codicil to probate, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion granted to the extent of permitting appellant to conduct discovery, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.

On this appeal, appellant asserts that Surrogate’s Court [610]*610should have permitted him to conduct discovery so as to substantiate his claim that decedent lacked capacity to execute the relevant codicil. While we express no view on the ultimate merit of his claim, on the record presented, appellant set forth a sufficient factual predicate to warrant discovery. Concur— Lerner, J. P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, 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 on or about February 28, 2000, which denied appellant’s motion for leave to file objections to a codicil revoking his appointment as executor of the decedent’s estate, and to conduct discovery in connection therewith, and admitted the subject codicil to probate, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion granted to the extent of permitting appellant to conduct discovery, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.

On this appeal, appellant asserts that Surrogate’s Court [610]*610should have permitted him to conduct discovery so as to substantiate his claim that decedent lacked capacity to execute the relevant codicil. While we express no view on the ultimate merit of his claim, on the record presented, appellant set forth a sufficient factual predicate to warrant discovery. Concur— Lerner, J. P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 609, 730 N.Y.S.2d 227, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-torczyner-nyappdiv-2001.