
    Nicholas W. Krewer, Appellant, v. William A. Colavolpe, Respondent.
   In our opinion, under the circumstances here, the denial of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion (cf. Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 40; Matter of Poth, 155 Misc. 116; Shearn v. Lord, 16 Misc 2d 224, affd. 3 A D 2d 823). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.  