Case Name: In the Matter of the Estate of Jorgen P. Hansen, Also Known as Peter S. Hansen, Deceased. Mary Hansen, by Erik Krog-Meyer, as Consul General of Denmark at New York, Appellant; Tierney A. O'Rourke, as Public Administrator of Queens County, Respondent. In the Matter of the Estate of Wolfgang Hansen, Deceased. Karin M. Hansen, by Erik KrogMeyer, as Consul General of Denmark at New York, Appellant; Tierney A. O'Rourke, as Public Administrator of Queens County, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1978-03-13
Citations: 61 A.D.2d 1013
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Estate of Jorgen P. Hansen, Also Known as Peter S. Hansen, Deceased. Mary Hansen, by Erik Krog-Meyer, as Consul General of Denmark at New York, Appellant; Tierney A. O’Rourke, as Public Administrator of Queens County, Respondent. In the Matter of the Estate of Wolfgang Hansen, Deceased. Karin M. Hansen, by Erik KrogMeyer, as Consul General of Denmark at New York, Appellant; Tierney A. O’Rourke, as Public Administrator of Queens County,
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 1013–1014

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Estate of Jorgen P. Hansen, Also Known as Peter S. Hansen, Deceased. Mary Hansen, by Erik Krog-Meyer, as Consul General of Denmark at New York, Appellant; Tierney A. O’Rourke, as Public Administrator of Queens County, Respondent. In the Matter of the Estate of Wolfgang Hansen, Deceased. Karin M. Hansen, by Erik KrogMeyer, as Consul General of Denmark at New York, Appellant; Tierney A. O’Rourke, as Public Administrator of Queens County,

Opinion:
In proceedings to set aside and vacate the granting of letters of administration to the Public Administrator of Queens County upon the estates of decedents Jorgen Peter Schmidt Hansen and Wolfgang Hansen, petitioners separately appeal from two orders (one in each proceeding) of the Surrogate's Court, Queens County, both dated February 10, 1977, which denied their respective motions for summary judgment. Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The motions for summary judgment rested on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction. We find that there are triable issues of L et with respect to the jurisdiction of the Surrogate's Court. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O'Connor, JJ., concur.