Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Kulyk
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided January 30, 1934PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Henderson, S.
Before the date upon which the proposed order denying a motion for rehearing was noticed for settlement, counsel for the Polish Consul wrote a letter inviting my attention to a certain case. Although this informal practice should be discouraged, I have considered the matter as if reargued because counsel for the claimant has continued the informality with a letter in reply.
The case cited (Matter of West, 257 N. Y. 108) follows a line of *308decisions establishing the general rule that a claim for legal services resting on a quantum meruit draws interest from the date of the first…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Patterson v. . PattersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- O'Brien v. . YoungNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Prager v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance Co. of NewarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- J. B. Preston Co. v. FunkhouserNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
- Van Rensselaer v. JewettNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Apostle v. PappasNew York Supreme Court · 1935
- Lum v. FullawayHawaii Supreme Court · 1958
- In re the Estate of CavaNew York Surrogate's Court · 1940
- In re GellerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1950
- National Metropolitan Bank of Washington v. Joseph Gawler's Sons, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1947
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.