Summary
In Matter of Weisberg (286 App. Div. 850), a similar situation was presented except that objections had been filed and the attorney-draftsman, nominated executor and subscribing witness was formally charged in the objections with being used by those allegedly responsible for the undue influence.
Summary of this case from Matter of HuttonOpinion
June 6, 1955.
Appeal from Surrogate's Court, Nassau County.
Resettled order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, payable out of the estate. Although the objections allege fraud and undue influence on the part of the two other named executors, no such charge is made against the temporary administrator. He is not a beneficiary under the will, and is an experienced and reputable attorney, familiar with the affairs of the decedent. It was for the Surrogate to determine in his discretion who should be appointed. (Surrogate's Ct. Act, § 126.) We find no abuse of discretion in the appointment made. (Cf. Matter of Erlanger, 136 Misc. 793, affd. 229 App. Div. 778.) Nolan, P.J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.