Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Garrity

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided October 16, 1933PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Wingate, S.

The application to punish the respondent for contempt for failure to pay the sums directed by the final decree must be granted. (Surr. Ct. Act, § 84, subd. 4.) The entry of the decree from which no appeal has been taken, and the time to appeal from which has expired, conclusively demonstrate the possession by the executor of assets applicable to the payments directed. (Surr. Ct. Act, § 79; Matter of Strong, 111 App. Div. 281, 284; affd., 186 N. Y. 584; Matter of Scheuer, 161 App. Div. 525, 527.)

The answer of the respondent sets forth merely that he is unable to pay. Such a defense…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Schmohl v. PhillipsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
  2. In re the Judicial Settlement of the Final Account of StrongAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
  3. In re the Estate of CookeNew York Surrogate's Court · 1933
  4. In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of ScheuerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of WaxNew York Surrogate's Court · 1933
  2. In re the Estate of KananackNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
  3. In re the Estate of MasonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1940
  4. In re the Estate of LentNew York Surrogate's Court · 1936
  5. In re the Estate of KahrNew York Surrogate's Court · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API