In re the Probate of the Will of Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of the Will of Anderson

285 A.D. 971, 138 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6332

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 971 (In re the Probate of the Will of Anderson) 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 Probate of the Will of Anderson, 285 A.D. 971, 138 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

In a contested probate proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, granting respondent’s cross motion for an examination before trial of the subscribing witnesses as such, of appellant as an adverse party and of a prospective witness, and providing for other relief. The only questions presented on this appeal relate to certain of the items allowed with respect to the examination before trial. Order modified by striking therefrom the last ordering paragraph and by [972]*972deleting from the next to the last ordering paragraph items designated (e), (h) and (i) and by inserting in item designated (k) at the end thereof the words “ during her lifetime ” and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Assuming that in a proper case an examination as to transactions occurring after the death of the decedent might be permissible, the facts set forth in respondent’s motion papers are totally insufficient to justify a finding that evidence of such transactions is material and necessary to respondent’s case. MacCrate, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

In a contested probate proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, granting respondent’s cross motion for an examination before trial of the subscribing witnesses as such, of appellant as an adverse party and of a prospective witness, and providing for other relief. The only questions presented on this appeal relate to certain of the items allowed with respect to the examination before trial. Order modified by striking therefrom the last ordering paragraph and by [972]*972deleting from the next to the last ordering paragraph items designated (e), (h) and (i) and by inserting in item designated (k) at the end thereof the words “ during her lifetime ” and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Assuming that in a proper case an examination as to transactions occurring after the death of the decedent might be permissible, the facts set forth in respondent’s motion papers are totally insufficient to justify a finding that evidence of such transactions is material and necessary to respondent’s case. MacCrate, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 971, 138 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-will-of-anderson-nyappdiv-1955.