In re Estate of Muller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Estate of Muller

204 A.D.2d 551, 611 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5237

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

DecidedMay 16, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 551 (In re Estate of Muller) 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 Estate of Muller, 204 A.D.2d 551, 611 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a contested probate proceeding, the proponent appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated April 28, 1992, which, upon the Surrogate’s sua sponte determination to direct a verdict pursuant to CPLR 4401 at the close of the proponent’s evidence, dismissed the petition for probate and decreed that the decedent died intestate.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the proponent personally.

The proponent offered a document for probate which was missing the bottom portion of the page which would have contained the decedent’s signature and the signatures of attesting witnesses. A testator may effect revocation of a will, inter alia, by an act of cutting or mutilation (see, EPTL 3-4.1 [a] [2] [A] [i]). The proponent conceded that he had no evidence as to how the signature was removed or where the signature was. The existence of the will in a cut and mutilated condition created the presumption that the decedent intended to revoke her will (see, Matter of Bonner, 17 NY2d 9, 11). The Surrogate properly refused to allow the jury to speculate on the issue of revocation and properly denied the petition for probate, as the proponent failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption of revocation.

We have examined the proponent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a contested probate proceeding, the proponent appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated April 28, 1992, which, upon the Surrogate’s sua sponte determination to direct a verdict pursuant to CPLR 4401 at the close of the proponent’s evidence, dismissed the petition for probate and decreed that the decedent died intestate.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the proponent personally.

The proponent offered a document for probate which was missing the bottom portion of the page which would have contained the decedent’s signature and the signatures of attesting witnesses. A testator may effect revocation of a will, inter alia, by an act of cutting or mutilation (see, EPTL 3-4.1 [a] [2] [A] [i]). The proponent conceded that he had no evidence as to how the signature was removed or where the signature was. The existence of the will in a cut and mutilated condition created the presumption that the decedent intended to revoke her will (see, Matter of Bonner, 17 NY2d 9, 11). The Surrogate properly refused to allow the jury to speculate on the issue of revocation and properly denied the petition for probate, as the proponent failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption of revocation.

We have examined the proponent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 551, 611 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-muller-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack