Matter of Luk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Luk

120 A.D.3d 580, 990 N.Y.S.2d 843

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

DecidedAugust 13, 2014

Docket2013-01781

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 580 (Matter of Luk) 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

Matter of Luk, 120 A.D.3d 580, 990 N.Y.S.2d 843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for the administration of a decedent’s estate, in which the respondent Dennis Lee petitioned pursuant to SCEA 1804 for an order directing a reservation of estate assets, Chun Ka Luk, the administrator of the estate, Bernice Luk, and Albert Luk appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (McCarty III, S.), dated December 17, 2012, which granted the petition and directed the administrator of the estate to reserve estate assets in the sum of $51,000,000, for a period of one year from the date of the order.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

As the order directing the administrator of the decedent’s *581 estate to reserve estate assets in the sum of $51,000,000 expired by its terms on December 17, 2013, any determination by this Court will not directly affect the rights of the parties (see Matter of Weiner v State of New York, 89 AD3d 953, 953-954 [2011]; Festa v Festa, 76 AD3d 1047, 1047-1048 [2010]; Matter of Bucaro v Morales, 62 AD3d 994, 995 [2009]). Since the matter does not warrant the invocation of the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]), we dismiss the appeal as academic (see Matter of Weiner v State of New York, 89 AD3d 953 [2011]; Festa v Festa, 76 AD3d 1047 [2010]; Matter of Bucaro v Morales, 62 AD3d at 995).

Skelos, J.E, Chambers, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding for the administration of a decedent’s estate, in which the respondent Dennis Lee petitioned pursuant to SCEA 1804 for an order directing a reservation of estate assets, Chun Ka Luk, the administrator of the estate, Bernice Luk, and Albert Luk appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (McCarty III, S.), dated December 17, 2012, which granted the petition and directed the administrator of the estate to reserve estate assets in the sum of $51,000,000, for a period of one year from the date of the order.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

As the order directing the administrator of the decedent’s *581 estate to reserve estate assets in the sum of $51,000,000 expired by its terms on December 17, 2013, any determination by this Court will not directly affect the rights of the parties (see Matter of Weiner v State of New York, 89 AD3d 953, 953-954 [2011]; Festa v Festa, 76 AD3d 1047, 1047-1048 [2010]; Matter of Bucaro v Morales, 62 AD3d 994, 995 [2009]). Since the matter does not warrant the invocation of the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]), we dismiss the appeal as academic (see Matter of Weiner v State of New York, 89 AD3d 953 [2011]; Festa v Festa, 76 AD3d 1047 [2010]; Matter of Bucaro v Morales, 62 AD3d at 995).

Skelos, J.E, Chambers, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 580, 990 N.Y.S.2d 843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-luk-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack