Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Kramek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 24, 1949Published

1Opinion of the Court

All concur, except McCum and Kimball, JJ., who dissent and vote for modification in accordance with the following memorandum: The facts set forth in the tax schedules were not litigated when the pro forma order was made but were assumed to be true. The order made within two years modifying the pro forma order was within the power of the Surrogate. (Matter of Willets, 119 App. Div. 119, affd. 190 N. Y. 527; Matter of Troescher, 265 App. Div. 971, affd. 291 N. Y. 760; see, also, Tax Law § 249-aa.) The petitioner having moved to modify the pro forma order, the burden was upon her to show facts…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In re the Appraisal of the Estate of WilletsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
  2. Foster v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937
  3. In Re the Estate of TroescherNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
  4. In re TroescherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
  5. In Re the Estate of CrumpNew York Court of Appeals · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API