Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: THE JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF HSBC BANK USA N.A., PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. SEYMOUR H. KNOX, IV, W.A. READ KNOX, AVERY KNOX, HELEN KNOX KEILHOLTZ, OBJECTANTS–RESPONDENTS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DATED JANUARY 21, 1957, SEYMOUR H. KNOX, GRANTOR,
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ISSUE OF SEYMOUR H.
KNOX, III, FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 21, 1957 TO
NOVEMBER 3, 2005.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is denied.
Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order insofar as it granted that part of the motion of objectants (hereafter, Income Beneficiaries) seeking leave to amend their objections to an accounting to conform to the proof presented during the 2010 trial. We agree with petitioner that Surrogate's Court erred in granting that part of the motion inasmuch as “the proposed amendment is lacking in merit” (Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v Reliance Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 1000, 1001 [4th Dept 2004] ). The Income Beneficiaries sought to amend their objections to an accounting to assert, verbatim, the objections that were asserted by the guardian ad litem related to the same accounting. We previously determined that those same objections lacked merit (Matter of HSBC Bank USA, N.A. [Knox], 98 AD3d 300 [4th Dept 2012], lv dismissed 20 NY3d 1056 [2013] ). Inasmuch as our prior decision is the law of the case, the Surrogate was bound by our decision and erred in granting relief “that was inconsistent with this Court's decision in the prior appeal” (J.N.K. Mach. Corp. v. TBW, Ltd., 98 AD3d 1259, 1260 [4th Dept 2012] ).
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CA 17–00996
Decided: February 02, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)