In re the Est. of Smith, 44 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
In re the Est. of Smith, 44 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wilson v. Dallas (sc, 2011-11-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. Dallas
S.C. · 2011 · confidence medium
See In re Estate of Riley, 228 Ariz. 382 , 266 P.3d 1078, 1083 (Ct.App.2011) (observing the purpose of the statute regarding compromise agreements, which is based on the Uniform Probate Code, is to keep the power to make compromises involving the estate in the hands of the estate’s beneficiaries and to prevent executors and testamentary trustees from vetoing such proposals); In re Estate of Smith, 44 A.D.2d 851 , 355 N.Y.S.2d 994, 995 (1974) (stating “Appellant, as executor and trustee under the will, does not have such an interest as would prevent any compromise made among all the parties…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Estate of Corbin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
As the named executor and successor executor under the will, the appellants did “not have such an interest as would prevent any compromise made among all the parties beneficially interested in the estate” (Matter of Smith, 44 AD2d 851, 852 [1974]; see SCPA 2106 [1] [b]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Estate of William Smith, Joseph F. Haher, Individually and as and Trustee of William Smith, Appellant George Lea
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 28, 1974.
44 A.D.2d 851
1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4912
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

In this probate proceeding, the executor-trustee-attorney under the propounded will appeals from two decrees of the Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County, the first dated December 4, 1973, which approved a compromise agreement between all the named respondents, and the second dated December 27, 1973, which admitted the will to probate and granted letters testamentary to appellant. The Attorney-General of the State of New York was cited and appeared as the statutory representative[*852] of the ultimate charitable beneficiaries of the charitable gifts bequeathed in the will. Appeals dismissed, with $20 costs and disbursements to all parties filing separate briefs, payable out of the estate. Appellant, as executor and trustee under the will, does not have such an interest as would prevent any compromise made among all the parties beneficially interested in the estate (SOPA 2106, subd. 1, par. [b] ; Matter of Rainey, 22 A D 2d 852). Moreover, the interests sought to be protected under a compromise agreement are those of named and unnamed beneficiaries. They are not meant to include attorneys, not mentioned in the agreement, whose legal fees constitute a part of administration expenses and have not yet been fixed by the Surrogate. Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur. [75 Misc 2d 895.]