Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Voislawsky

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided March 13, 1924PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Foley, S.

The application for the fifing of a compulsory account is denied. It is clear from the evidence that a complete disclosure of the condition of the estate was made to the petitioner, Perry H. Voislawsky (now known as Perry H, Voyce) in the year 1911. A written account, accurately setting forth each item of the assets of the estate and the receipts and expenditures of the executor, was delivered to the petitioner and his mother in March, 1911. This account was prepared under the supervision of a reputable attorney and his testimony sustains the executor’s version of the transaction.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of WagnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. In re the Estate of TyrrellNew York Surrogate's Court · 1921
  3. In re Estate of HaleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of JamesNew York Surrogate's Court · 1940
  2. In re the Estate of SchroderNew York Surrogate's Court · 1941
  3. In re the Accounting by LeoGrandeNew York Surrogate's Court · 2006
  4. In re the Estate of AmusoNew York Surrogate's Court · 1959
  5. In re the Estate of BlodgettNew York Surrogate's Court · 1939

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API