In re Duzhansky

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Citation: 57 N.Y.S.3d 905 (Mem)
• Parties: In the Matter of Leonid V. DUZHANSKY, also known as Leonid Duzhansky, deceased. Eleanor Gutt, respondent; Regina Duzhanskja, appellant.
• Decision Date: 23 August 2017

153 A.D.3d 819
57 N.Y.S.3d 905 (Mem)

In the Matter of Leonid V. DUZHANSKY, also known as Leonid Duzhansky, deceased.

Eleanor Gutt, respondent;

Regina Duzhanskja, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Aug. 23, 2017.

Seth Rubenstein, P.C., Brooklyn, NY, and Christina Cline, Astoria, NY, for appellant (one brief filed).

Jules Martin Haas, New York, NY, and Novick & Associates, P.C., Huntington, NY (Michael J. Sullivan of counsel), for respondent (one brief filed).

57 N.Y.S.3d 906

In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant Regina Duzhanskja appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate's Court, Kings County (Lopez Torres, S.), dated August 2, 2016, as denied that branch of her motion which was to expand discovery beyond the time period set forth in 22 NYCRR 207.27 with respect to certain medical records of the decedent.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The applicable Uniform Rules for the Surrogate's Court confines discovery to "a three-year period prior to the date of the propounded instrument and two years thereafter, or to the date of [the] decedent's death, whichever is the shorter period," except upon "the showing of special circumstances" ( 22 NYCRR 207.27 ). The determination of whether to expand the time period set forth in that rule is within the discretion of the court (see Matter of Constant, 128 A.D.3d 419, 6 N.Y.S.3d 477 ).

Here, contrary to the objectant's contention, the Surrogate's Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of her motion which was to expand discovery beyond the time period set forth in 22 NYCRR 207.27 with respect to certain medical records of the decedent. The objectant failed to demonstrate that there were special circumstances warranting expansion of the time period set forth in that rule (see Matter of Wilson, 266 A.D.2d 164, 698 N.Y.S.2d 854 ).

RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.