In re Cattanach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Cattanach

22 A.D.2d 810, 254 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2795

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 810 (In re Cattanach) 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

In re Cattanach, 22 A.D.2d 810, 254 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a discovery proceeding by the executor to recover certain bonds or their proceeds from decedent’s second wife (the respondent Lillian Cattanach), who claimed that the bonds were given to her by decedent as an inter vivos gift, decedent’s first wife and their daughter appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, entered January 22, 1964 after a nonjury trial upon the court’s decision and opinion, which adjudged that the said respondent Lillian Cattanach is the owner and entitled to the possession of the bonds, and which dismissed the petition. Decree affirmed, with costs to respondent Lillian Cattanach payable out of the estate. The record presents, primarily, a question of fact as to whether the claimed gift was made. In our opinion, the Surrogate’s determination, namely: that respondent Lillian Cattanach had sustained the burden of proving the essential elements of a gift inter vivos, is supported by adequate proof (cf. Matter of Presender, 285 App. Div. 109, 118). We aré also of the opinion that the examination of said respondent by appellants’ counsel with respect to the sale of some of the bonds by decedent subsequent to the alleged gift opened the door to respondent’s further testimony, on cross-examination by her attorney, that the sale had been made at her request (cf. Matter of Berardini, 238 App. Div. 433, 435, affd. 263 N. Y. 627). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a discovery proceeding by the executor to recover certain bonds or their proceeds from decedent’s second wife (the respondent Lillian Cattanach), who claimed that the bonds were given to her by decedent as an inter vivos gift, decedent’s first wife and their daughter appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, entered January 22, 1964 after a nonjury trial upon the court’s decision and opinion, which adjudged that the said respondent Lillian Cattanach is the owner and entitled to the possession of the bonds, and which dismissed the petition. Decree affirmed, with costs to respondent Lillian Cattanach payable out of the estate. The record presents, primarily, a question of fact as to whether the claimed gift was made. In our opinion, the Surrogate’s determination, namely: that respondent Lillian Cattanach had sustained the burden of proving the essential elements of a gift inter vivos, is supported by adequate proof (cf. Matter of Presender, 285 App. Div. 109, 118). We aré also of the opinion that the examination of said respondent by appellants’ counsel with respect to the sale of some of the bonds by decedent subsequent to the alleged gift opened the door to respondent’s further testimony, on cross-examination by her attorney, that the sale had been made at her request (cf. Matter of Berardini, 238 App. Div. 433, 435, affd. 263 N. Y. 627). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 810, 254 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cattanach-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack