Estate of Windheim v. Huggard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estate of Windheim v. Huggard

192 A.D.2d 337, 596 N.Y.S.2d 678

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 6, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 337 (Estate of Windheim v. Huggard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Windheim v. Huggard, 192 A.D.2d 337, 596 N.Y.S.2d 678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about January 15, 1992, which, after a non-jury trial, granted probate of the subject will, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proponents of the will met their burden, through the testimony of the subscribing witnesses, of establishing a prima facie case of testamentary capacity (see, Matter of Kumstar, 66 NY2d 691, 692), thus shifting the burden to the objectant to disprove testamentary capacity (see, Matter of Kaplan, 50 AD2d 429, 431, affd 41 NY2d 870; Matter of Whalen, 87 AD2d 733, 734). Here, the objectant did not offer sufficient affirmative proof of a lack of testamentary capacity. Accordingly, the will was properly admitted to probate.

We have considered the objectant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about January 15, 1992, which, after a non-jury trial, granted probate of the subject will, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proponents of the will met their burden, through the testimony of the subscribing witnesses, of establishing a prima facie case of testamentary capacity (see, Matter of Kumstar, 66 NY2d 691, 692), thus shifting the burden to the objectant to disprove testamentary capacity (see, Matter of Kaplan, 50 AD2d 429, 431, affd 41 NY2d 870; Matter of Whalen, 87 AD2d 733, 734). Here, the objectant did not offer sufficient affirmative proof of a lack of testamentary capacity. Accordingly, the will was properly admitted to probate.

We have considered the objectant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 337, 596 N.Y.S.2d 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-windheim-v-huggard-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack