Matter of Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Miller

132 A.D.3d 768, 17 N.Y.S.3d 656

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2015

Docket2013-09181

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 768 (Matter of Miller) 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 Miller, 132 A.D.3d 768, 17 N.Y.S.3d 656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding in which the executor of the estate, JP Morgan Chase & Co., petitioned to judicially settle its account, the objectant David Miller appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), entered June 26, 2013, which denied the objectants’ motion to compel further discovery and to impose sanctions against the executor.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable personally by the appellant.

The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the objectants’ motion which was to compel the executor to comply with certain discovery requests, as the numerous discovery requests were vague, overbroad, burdensome, or not reasonably calculated to lead to material or necessary information (see Accent Collections, Inc. v Cappelli Enters., Inc., 84 AD3d 1283 [2011]; Palermo Mason Constr. v Aark Holding Corp., 300 AD2d 460, 461 [2002]). In addition, many of the requests were duplicative of prior interrogatories and discovery demands to which the executor had already responded.

Since the executor did not fail to comply with a proper discovery request, the Supreme Court properly declined to impose sanctions.

Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

In a probate proceeding in which the executor of the estate, JP Morgan Chase & Co., petitioned to judicially settle its account, the objectant David Miller appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Czygier, S.), entered June 26, 2013, which denied the objectants’ motion to compel further discovery and to impose sanctions against the executor.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable personally by the appellant.

The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the objectants’ motion which was to compel the executor to comply with certain discovery requests, as the numerous discovery requests were vague, overbroad, burdensome, or not reasonably calculated to lead to material or necessary information (see Accent Collections, Inc. v Cappelli Enters., Inc., 84 AD3d 1283 [2011]; Palermo Mason Constr. v Aark Holding Corp., 300 AD2d 460, 461 [2002]). In addition, many of the requests were duplicative of prior interrogatories and discovery demands to which the executor had already responded.

Since the executor did not fail to comply with a proper discovery request, the Supreme Court properly declined to impose sanctions.

Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 768, 17 N.Y.S.3d 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-miller-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack