Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Grotsky

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided May 22, 1958PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

John D. Bennett, S.

In this discovery proceeding respondent moves to vacate the petitioner’s demand for a bill of particulars on the grounds that the demand is repetitious, burdensome, and seeks evidentiary matter.

The respondent has interposed an affirmative defense to paragraph 4 of the petition, alleging that the stock sought to be recovered by the petitioner was the subject of a gift to her.

Bills of particulars are regularly required in a discovery proceeding (Matter of Leary, 175 Misc. 253). Although no particulars may be demanded during the inquisitorial stage, where there is an…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of KevillNew York Surrogate's Court · 1938
  2. In re the Estate of BrittonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1938
  3. In re the Estate of KusterNew York Surrogate's Court · 1956
  4. In re the Estate of LearyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1940
  5. Adams v. CoeAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1909

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re the Estate of EnglishNew York Surrogate's Court · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API