Petrie v. Chase Manhattan Bank

292 N.E.2d 308, 31 N.Y.2d 856, 340 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 954
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 6, 1972·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Motion denied, with leave to renew upon argument of the appeal. Appellants Petrie and Looby were not adversely affected by the judgment of the trial court because of the out-of-court settlement agreement and situation in the California probate proceeding, and, therefore, arguably, could not have appealed. They were substantially affected, however, by the Appellate Division modification. Under these circumstances, it would seem that they should not be barred from appealing to this court by their failure to appeal below (cf. Matter of Zaiac, 279 N. Y. 545, 554). That appellants may be chargeable with abandonment in the courts below of their challenge to the validity of the trust would affect merely the scope of the review available on the appeal to this court, rather than their right to take the appeal.

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

Petrie v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 292 N.E.2d 308, 31 N.Y.2d 856, 340 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 954 (N.Y. 1972).

292 N.E.2d 308 (Petrie v. Chase Manhattan Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Estate of Davidson
177 Misc. 2d 928 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1998)