Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/In re the State of Laflin

In re the State of Laflin

111 A.D.2d 924, 491 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50189
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 24, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 924 (In re the State of Laflin) 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 State of Laflin, 111 A.D.2d 924, 491 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

In a proceeding for the judicial settlement of the account of the executors of a decedent’s estate, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated May 31,1984, which granted the objectant’s motion pursuant to SCPA 2211 and CPLR 3205 (b) to amend his objection number 10.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Objectant’s amended objection number 10 alleges that executor Goodstein, as the attorney draftsman of decedent’s will, negligently and unethically failed to advise decedent of the statutory provision which permits the payment of full commissions to each of two nominated executors in an estate of this size (see, SCPA 2307 [5]). The appellant Goodstein, who together with his coexecutor, Chemical Bank, has petitioned the Surrogate’s Court for a judicial settlement of their account, has failed to demonstrate that any prejudice or surprise would result from the proposed amendment (see, McCaskey, Davies & Assoc. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755; Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 104 AD2d 857). Furthermore, the objectant’s amended objection number 10 is legally cognizable (see, Matter of Weinstock, 40 NY2d 1; Matter of Harris, 123 Misc 2d 247). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re the Estate of Fleshler
176 Misc. 2d 583 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1998)
In re the Estate of Peckolick
167 Misc. 2d 597 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1996)
In re Estate of Klenk
204 A.D.2d 640 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
In re the Estate of Lowenstein
158 Misc. 2d 320 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1993)
In re Corya
175 A.D.2d 162 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the Estate of Klenk
151 Misc. 2d 863 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1991)
In re Atterbury
173 A.D.2d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the Estate of Corya
148 Misc. 2d 723 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1990)
In re the Estate of Carlisle
142 Misc. 2d 657 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1989)
In re the Estate of Thron
139 Misc. 2d 1045 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1988)
In re the Estate of Parkinson
138 Misc. 2d 1069 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 A.D.2d 924, 491 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-state-of-laflin-nyappdiv-1985.