In re Estate of Schmitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Estate of Schmitz

104 A.D.2d 1039, 481 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20476

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 1039 (In re Estate of Schmitz) 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 Schmitz, 104 A.D.2d 1039, 481 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a probate proceeding, the appeal is from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated April 29,1983, which was in favor of the proponent of the will.

Decree affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Objectants, first cousins of the testatrix, have failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the proponent draftsman so overpowered and subjugated the mind of the testatrix that the will in question was not an expression of the testatrix’s intention (see Matter of Klitgaard, 83 AD2d 651). That the sole beneficiary was the proponent’s wife was not indicative of undue influence because the testimonial and documentary evidence demonstrated that she was the most natural object of the testatrix’s bounty; the beneficiary had a virtually lifelong friendship with the testatrix while the objectants had very little contact with her over the years. Furthermore, the testatrix was given several opportunities at the execution of the will to reconsider her bequest without any interference from the proponent or beneficiary. Finally, it does not appear that the testatrix was in a weakened state of mind in the relevant time period. In these circumstances, the will was properly admitted to probate. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Bracken and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— In a probate proceeding, the appeal is from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated April 29,1983, which was in favor of the proponent of the will.

Decree affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Objectants, first cousins of the testatrix, have failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the proponent draftsman so overpowered and subjugated the mind of the testatrix that the will in question was not an expression of the testatrix’s intention (see Matter of Klitgaard, 83 AD2d 651). That the sole beneficiary was the proponent’s wife was not indicative of undue influence because the testimonial and documentary evidence demonstrated that she was the most natural object of the testatrix’s bounty; the beneficiary had a virtually lifelong friendship with the testatrix while the objectants had very little contact with her over the years. Furthermore, the testatrix was given several opportunities at the execution of the will to reconsider her bequest without any interference from the proponent or beneficiary. Finally, it does not appear that the testatrix was in a weakened state of mind in the relevant time period. In these circumstances, the will was properly admitted to probate. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Bracken and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 1039, 481 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-schmitz-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack