Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985

In re the State of Laflin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 24, 1985

111 A.D.2d 924; 491 N.Y.S.2d 35; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50189

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Estate of Klenk (New York Surrogate's Court 1991)
In re Estate of Klenk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
In re the Estate of Corya (New York Surrogate's Court 1990)
In re the Estate of Fleshler (New York Surrogate's Court 1998)
In re the Estate of Peckolick (New York Surrogate's Court 1996)
In re the Estate of Lowenstein (New York Surrogate's Court 1993)
In re Atterbury (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
In re Corya (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
In re the Estate of Carlisle (New York Surrogate's Court 1989)
In re the Estate of Parkinson (New York Surrogate's Court 1988)
In re the Estate of Thron (New York Surrogate's Court 1988)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In a proceeding for the judicial settlement of the account of the executors of a decedent’s estate, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated May 31,1984, which granted the objectant’s motion pursuant to SCPA 2211 and CPLR 3205 (b) to amend his objection number 10.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Objectant’s amended objection number 10 alleges that executor Goodstein, as the attorney draftsman of decedent’s will, negligently and unethically failed to advise decedent of the statutory provision which permits the payment of full commissions to each of two nominated executors in an estate of this size (see, SCPA 2307 [5]). The appellant Goodstein, who together with his coexecutor, Chemical Bank, has petitioned the Surrogate’s Court for a judicial settlement of their account, has failed to demonstrate that any prejudice or surprise would result from the proposed amendment (see, McCaskey, Davies & Assoc. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755; Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 104 AD2d 857). Furthermore, the objectant’s amended objection number 10 is legally cognizable (see, Matter of Weinstock, 40 NY2d 1; Matter of Harris, 123 Misc 2d 247). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.