In our opinion, under the circumstances here, the denial of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion (cf. Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 40; Matter of Poth, 155 Misc. 116; Shearn v. Lord, 16 Misc 2d 224, affd. 3 A D 2d 823). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.
