Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Kuster
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided June 7, 1956PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
John D. Bennett, S.
In this discovery proceeding (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, §§ 205, 206) a demand for a bill of particulars was served on the petitioner. Instead of following the procedure required by rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice, the petitioner returned the demand. Thereupon the respondents, instead of moving for a preclusion order as provided in rule 115, now move for an order requiring the petitioner to comply with the demand previously served.
This illustrates the general disregard for the specific procedural requirements of rule 115, which does not seem to have had the salutary…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- In re the Estate of HerleNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
- Hersh v. Home InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- In re the Estate of KevillNew York Surrogate's Court · 1938
- Kelsey v. . SargentNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Inter County Painting Co. v. 200 East End Ave. Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Swift v. SwiftNew York Family Court · 1971
- In re the Estate of PucciNew York Surrogate's Court · 1958
- In re the Estate of LukasNew York Surrogate's Court · 1974
- Boin v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesNew York District Court · 1960
- In re the Estate of GrotskyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1958
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.