Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Von Bargen

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided October 14, 1963PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Maximilian Moss, S.

The petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the learned Referee is denied. The claimant-respondent’s cross motion to open his default and refer the matter back to the Referee is granted (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 20, subd. 6; CPLR, rule 5015). The court is satisfied that the default suffered by the respondent was not willful, deliberate or intentional.

It appears from the record that the day before the hearing, respondent’s former attorney advised the Referee that he was withdrawing from this proceeding and on the day of the hearing both respondent and his attorney failed…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Commercial Bank v. FoltzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Domlin Hair Design, Ltd. v. La DucaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  2. In re the Estate of WeinmanNew York Surrogate's Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API