Petrie v. Chase Manhattan Bank

New York Court of Appeals

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

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 6, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 N.E.2d 308 (Petrie v. Chase Manhattan Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 N.E.2d 308, 31 N.Y.2d 856, 340 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petrie-v-chase-manhattan-bank-ny-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack