In re the Estate of Zahoudanis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Zahoudanis

289 A.D.2d 412, 734 N.Y.S.2d 891

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 412 (In re the Estate of Zahoudanis) 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 Zahoudanis, 289 A.D.2d 412, 734 N.Y.S.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an accounting proceeding, the objectant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Feinberg, S.), dated December 20, 1999, as denied her motion to vacate a decree of the same court (Bloom, S.), dated July 14, 1992.

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

We agree with the Surrogate’s Court that the objectant failed to demonstrate that a decree dated July 14, 1992, should be vacated as having been procured by the fraud of the executor and his attorney (see, CPLR 5015 [a]; Dubinsky v Rykowski, 266 AD2d 496; Matter of Carroll v Bene, 246 AD2d 649; Summer v Summer, 233 AD2d 881).

The objectant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and S. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an accounting proceeding, the objectant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Feinberg, S.), dated December 20, 1999, as denied her motion to vacate a decree of the same court (Bloom, S.), dated July 14, 1992.

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

We agree with the Surrogate’s Court that the objectant failed to demonstrate that a decree dated July 14, 1992, should be vacated as having been procured by the fraud of the executor and his attorney (see, CPLR 5015 [a]; Dubinsky v Rykowski, 266 AD2d 496; Matter of Carroll v Bene, 246 AD2d 649; Summer v Summer, 233 AD2d 881).

The objectant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and S. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 412, 734 N.Y.S.2d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-zahoudanis-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack