In re the Probate of the Will of Steinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of the Will of Steinberg

19 A.D.2d 788, 243 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3202

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 788 (In re the Probate of the Will of Steinberg) 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 Steinberg, 19 A.D.2d 788, 243 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on February 18, 1963, unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, to deny the motion of contestants-respondents insofar as they sought to modify items (a) and (c) of the demand for bill of particulars. Said items of the demand should have been allowed to stand. The order provides that the bill of particulars shall be served following the completion of the examinations before trial; and the contestants should then be able to and be required to state the times when and the places where the acts constituting the alleged fraud and undue influence took place, and also the names of the person or persons alleged to have exercised or practiced [789]*789the same. (See Matter of Martin, 151 Mise. 93; Matter of Gordon, 6 N. Y. S. 2d 569, 570.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on February 18, 1963, unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, to deny the motion of contestants-respondents insofar as they sought to modify items (a) and (c) of the demand for bill of particulars. Said items of the demand should have been allowed to stand. The order provides that the bill of particulars shall be served following the completion of the examinations before trial; and the contestants should then be able to and be required to state the times when and the places where the acts constituting the alleged fraud and undue influence took place, and also the names of the person or persons alleged to have exercised or practiced [789]*789the same. (See Matter of Martin, 151 Mise. 93; Matter of Gordon, 6 N. Y. S. 2d 569, 570.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 788, 243 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-will-of-steinberg-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack