Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Katz
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided December 11, 1947PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Delehanty, S.
The application for consent to transfer to this court an action now pending in the Supreme Court is in all respects granted. It is now the settled policy of the Supreme Court to concentrate in the Surrogate’s Court all matters-affecting the administration of estates (Ris v. Ris, 257 App. Div. 845; Noll v. Ruprecht, 256 App. Div. 926, affd. 282 N. Y. 598; Matter of Ranft, 268 App. Div. 136). It is particularly appropriate here that the action be transferred because the plaintiff in the action has filed objections to the now pending accounting which raise precisely the same…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Noll v. RuprechtNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
- Noll v. RuprechtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- In re the Accounting of Chase National BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
- In re the Estate of PedretteNew York Surrogate's Court · 1934
- Ris v. RisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
3Cited by5 opinions
- Shearn v. LordNew York Supreme Court · 1956
- In re the Estate of EdwardsNew York Surrogate's Court · 1963
- In re the Estate of MatzNew York Surrogate's Court · 1957
- In re the Estate of ShearnNew York Surrogate's Court · 1956
- In re the Estate of HutchinsonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1956