From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Zahoudanis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2000-04632

Argued November 13, 2001.

December 17, 2001.

In an accounting proceeding, the objectant appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate's Court, Kings County (Feinberg, S.), dated April 26, 2000, as denied that branch of her motion which was to compel compliance with certain document requests and vacated those requests as overly broad, and denied, in part, that branch of her motion which was to compel the depositions of the executor and his attorney by limiting the scope of such depositions, and denied that branch of her motion which was to amend her objections to a second supplemental accounting dated May 10, 1995.

Jacob Rabinowitz, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Kenneth Allen Habel, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SONDRA MILLER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is modified by (1) deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was to compel compliance with certain document requests and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion, and (2) deleting the provision thereof denying, in part, that branch of the motion which was to compel the depositions of the executor and his attorney and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the objectant payable by the estate.

In pursuing her objections to a second supplemental accounting dated May 10, 1995, the objectant is entitled to disclosure concerning documents and events occurring prior to that accounting (see, Matter of Ehmer, 272 A.D.2d 540; Matter of Winston, 238 A.D.2d 345; CPLR 3101). However, the objectant's request to amend her objections to the second supplemental accounting to interpose new and additional objections to prior accountings was properly denied. The objectant litigated her objections to those prior accountings, and the determination of those objections by the Surrogate was reduced to a decree that, on appeal, was modified by this court (see, Matter of Zahoudanis, 205 A.D.2d 547).

RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and S. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Zahoudanis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

In the Matter of Zahoudanis

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ELENI ZAHOUDANIS, deceased. MARY ZAHOUDANIS, appellant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 17, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
734 N.Y.S.2d 890