In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Siegelack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Siegelack

258 A.D. 1059, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8887

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 1059 (In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Siegelack) 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 Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Siegelack, 258 A.D. 1059, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Queens County, denying the appellant’s motion to be relieved from a stipulation entered into in open court as to the quantum of proof, to vacate and set aside the decree entered thereon and to restore the matter to the trial calendar of the Surrogate’s Court for a hearing and disposition on the merits, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted, without costs. The refusal to relieve the appellant from the stipulation made under the circumstances of this case was an improper exercise of the court’s discretion. (Van Nuys v. Titsworth, 57 Hun, 5; Goldstein v. Goldsmith, 243 App. Div. 268; Donovan v. Twist, 119 id. 734.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Queens County, denying the appellant’s motion to be relieved from a stipulation entered into in open court as to the quantum of proof, to vacate and set aside the decree entered thereon and to restore the matter to the trial calendar of the Surrogate’s Court for a hearing and disposition on the merits, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted, without costs. The refusal to relieve the appellant from the stipulation made under the circumstances of this case was an improper exercise of the court’s discretion. (Van Nuys v. Titsworth, 57 Hun, 5; Goldstein v. Goldsmith, 243 App. Div. 268; Donovan v. Twist, 119 id. 734.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 1059, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-judicial-settlement-of-the-account-of-proceedings-of-siegelack-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack