In re the Estate of Winston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Winston

238 A.D.2d 345, 656 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3373

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

DecidedApril 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 345 (In re the Estate of Winston) 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 Winston, 238 A.D.2d 345, 656 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for an accounting, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Weschester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated March 22, 1995, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3104 (d) to annul certain rulings of a court-appointed supervisor of discovery, which, inter alia, (1) denied his requests to photocopy certain documents produced in discovery, (2) denied his requests for the production of certain documents, and (3) permitted his advisors to be deposed.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Surrogate’s Court did not improvidently exercise its [346]*346discretion in denying the petitioner further discovery absent a showing of need (see, City of Mt. Vernon v Lexington Ins. Co., 232 AD2d 358; Lamagna v New York State Assn. for Help of Retarded Children, 222 AD2d 559; Kaplan v Herbstein, 175 AD2d 200). Similarly, the Surrogate’s Court did not err in granting the respondents’ request to depose the petitioner’s advisors, including his attorney, as the respondents established both a good faith basis for the deposition and that the information sought was relevant and necessary for their case (see, Byoung So Kim v Cho Ho Bae, 198 AD2d 206; Frybergh v Kouffman, 119 AD2d 541; Planned Indus. Ctrs. v Eric Bldrs., 51 AD2d 586; Matter of Macku, 29 AD2d 539). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for an accounting, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Weschester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated March 22, 1995, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3104 (d) to annul certain rulings of a court-appointed supervisor of discovery, which, inter alia, (1) denied his requests to photocopy certain documents produced in discovery, (2) denied his requests for the production of certain documents, and (3) permitted his advisors to be deposed.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Surrogate’s Court did not improvidently exercise its [346]*346discretion in denying the petitioner further discovery absent a showing of need (see, City of Mt. Vernon v Lexington Ins. Co., 232 AD2d 358; Lamagna v New York State Assn. for Help of Retarded Children, 222 AD2d 559; Kaplan v Herbstein, 175 AD2d 200). Similarly, the Surrogate’s Court did not err in granting the respondents’ request to depose the petitioner’s advisors, including his attorney, as the respondents established both a good faith basis for the deposition and that the information sought was relevant and necessary for their case (see, Byoung So Kim v Cho Ho Bae, 198 AD2d 206; Frybergh v Kouffman, 119 AD2d 541; Planned Indus. Ctrs. v Eric Bldrs., 51 AD2d 586; Matter of Macku, 29 AD2d 539). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 345, 656 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-winston-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack