Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Hajridin

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 13, 1974Published

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum.

The factual determination made by the Surrogate and affirmed by the Appellate Division that claimants would receive the benefit, use and control .of the funds in question, may not be set aside (cf. Matter of Leikind, 22 N Y 2d 346, 351-352, app. dsmd. sub nom. Laikind v. Attorney General of *957New York, 397 U. S. 148; Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U. S. 429). Questions relating to the weight of the evidence are not, of course, properly before us (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 108, p. 452), but we take pains to point out that it would have been better, and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Zschernig v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Laikind v. Attorney General of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API