Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Boyhan

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided November 23, 1960PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Joseph A. Cox, S.

In this discovery proceeding the respondent has moved for an order vacating the petitioner’s demand for a hill of particulars or, in the alternative, modifying such demand. The movant contends that the demand is improper because the executor has the burden of proof in respect of matters referred to in the demand and because the demand calls for evidentiary facts.

The petition in this proceeding alleges that the moneys which are the subject of the proceeding were transferred from a savings bank account of the decedent to bank accounts in the name of the respondent. The answer…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. In Re the Accounting of Van AlstyneNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
  2. Rosseau v. . RoussNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
  3. Marie Dorros, Inc. v. Dorros Bros.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
  4. In re the Estate of MullinNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932
  5. Oshinsky v. GumbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re the Probate of the Will of LenfesteyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1961
  2. In re the Estate of ReynoldsNew York Surrogate's Court · 1971
  3. In re the Estate of TribbleNew York Surrogate's Court · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API