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.