Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Maikowski
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided November 1, 2004PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Eve Preminger, S.
Respondent’s motion to reargue should be granted and, after reargument, the court adheres to its original decision.
The main question on reargument is whether the court misapprehended the facts or misapplied the law in denying respondent’s motion to compel (CPLR 2221). In its original decision, this court properly denied respondent’s motion to compel decedent’s attorney to testify about conversations concerning the preparation of a power of attorney, which respondent used, as agent, to gift more than $1,000,000 to himself. That attorney’s testimony is…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. GiancontieriNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- R/S Associates v. New York Job Development AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Semmler v. NaplesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Mantella v. MantellaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Moglia v. MogliaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re MaikowskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- In re the David Wolfenson 1999 TrustNew York Surrogate's Court · 2017