Opinion
April 16, 1992
Appeal from the Surrogate's Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.).
Contrary to respondents' contentions, the Surrogate properly relied on the doctrine of law of the case (Holloway v Cha Cha Laundry, 97 A.D.2d 385) even though an order had not yet been entered (George W. Collins, Inc. v Olsker-McLain Indus., 22 A.D.2d 485), in holding that petitioner had an "allowed" claim pursuant to SCPA 2102 (4) (Matter of Miles, 170 N.Y. 75), and that it was therefore unnecessary for her to show need pursuant to SCPA 2102 (5). We also agree with the Surrogate that the estate has the financial ability and obligation to pay the interim distribution, and should be protected from potential liabilities by the posting of a refunding bond (Matter of Brodin, 32 Misc.2d 651). Further, we find that respondents' request to seal the record should have been granted and direct the clerk to do so.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.