Pearlson v. Javitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pearlson v. Javitz

20 A.D.2d 550, 245 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2769

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 550 (Pearlson v. Javitz) 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

Pearlson v. Javitz, 20 A.D.2d 550, 245 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by the defendant’s three sisters to impress a trust on certain assets in her possession which are alleged to be properly a part of the estate of their deceased father, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 21, 1962, which denied her motion to vacate: (1) an inquest taken against her upon her default; and (2) the judgment entered December 4, 1962 on the decision of a Special Referee following such inquest before him. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the default was not “ due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,” but was willful. Hence, the Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion (cf. Heller v. Ward, 10 A D 2d 633). [Por prior appeal from the judgment, see 19 A D 2d 729.] Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by the defendant’s three sisters to impress a trust on certain assets in her possession which are alleged to be properly a part of the estate of their deceased father, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 21, 1962, which denied her motion to vacate: (1) an inquest taken against her upon her default; and (2) the judgment entered December 4, 1962 on the decision of a Special Referee following such inquest before him. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the default was not “ due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,” but was willful. Hence, the Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion (cf. Heller v. Ward, 10 A D 2d 633). [Por prior appeal from the judgment, see 19 A D 2d 729.] Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 550, 245 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearlson-v-javitz-nyappdiv-1963.