Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Rosenthal
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided September 15, 1931PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Foley, S.
The application for reargument is denied. It was held in my original decision herein (Matter of Rosenthal, N. Y. L. J. June 27, 1931) that no legal ground had been established to justify the reopening or modification of the decree judicially settling the account. Subdivision 6 of section 20 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, under which the application was made, confers power upon the surrogate to open, vacate or modify a decree for fraud, newly-discovered evidence, clerical error or other sufficient cause. He is limited in the exercise of such power to that of a court of general…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Cowenhoven v. . BallNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- In Re the Accounting of ClareNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Joseph v. . HerzigNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- In re the Estate of AbrahamsNew York Surrogate's Court · 1930
- Matter of Estate of Young v. . HicksNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In re the Estate of SielckenNew York Surrogate's Court · 1937
- In re the Estate of SidenbergNew York Surrogate's Court · 1933
- DiMauro v. PaviaDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1979
- In re the Estate of RubinNew York Surrogate's Court · 1961
- In re the Estate of AlterNew York Surrogate's Court · 1941
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.