In re the Estate of Wolf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Wolf

67 A.D.2d 930, 413 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10694

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 67 A.D.2d 930 (In re the Estate of Wolf) 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 Wolf, 67 A.D.2d 930, 413 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a contested accounting proceeding, the Attorney-General of the State of New York appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess County, entered November 17, 1977, which denied his motion for an order vacating an executor’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order modified, by adding to the decretal paragraph thereof, after the word "denied”, the following: "except said motion is granted insofar as the demand relates to attorneys’ fees, accountants’ fees and executors’ commissions”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The burden of proving the reasonableness and necessity of all expenses incurred after the testator’s death rests upon the accounting party (Matter of Shulsky, 34 AD2d 545). Since a party is not entitled to a bill of particulars with respect to a claim as to which he has the burden of proof, it was improper to deny the Attorney-General’s motion to vacate the demand for a bill of particulars relating to attorneys’ fees, accountants’ fees and executors’ fees. Suozzi, J. P., O’Connor, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

— In a contested accounting proceeding, the Attorney-General of the State of New York appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess County, entered November 17, 1977, which denied his motion for an order vacating an executor’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order modified, by adding to the decretal paragraph thereof, after the word "denied”, the following: "except said motion is granted insofar as the demand relates to attorneys’ fees, accountants’ fees and executors’ commissions”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The burden of proving the reasonableness and necessity of all expenses incurred after the testator’s death rests upon the accounting party (Matter of Shulsky, 34 AD2d 545). Since a party is not entitled to a bill of particulars with respect to a claim as to which he has the burden of proof, it was improper to deny the Attorney-General’s motion to vacate the demand for a bill of particulars relating to attorneys’ fees, accountants’ fees and executors’ fees. Suozzi, J. P., O’Connor, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 930, 413 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-wolf-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack