In re Estate of Tizer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Estate of Tizer

14 A.D.3d 351, 786 N.Y.S.2d 743, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.3d 351 (In re Estate of Tizer) 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 Tizer, 14 A.D.3d 351, 786 N.Y.S.2d 743, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about November 24, 2003, which admitted decedent’s will to probate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proponents of the will met their burden, through the affidavits of the subscribing witnesses and the attorney who had drafted the instrument, of establishing a prima facie case of testamentary capacity, and appellant failed to rebut that proof (see Matter of Kumstar, 66 NY2d 691 [1985]; Matter of Windheim, 192 AD2d 337 [1993], lv denied 83 NY2d 751 [1994]). There is no evidence in the record of fraud or conspiracy on the part of petitioners or appellant’s appointed guardian ad litem.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Gonzalez, 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 November 24, 2003, which admitted decedent’s will to probate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proponents of the will met their burden, through the affidavits of the subscribing witnesses and the attorney who had drafted the instrument, of establishing a prima facie case of testamentary capacity, and appellant failed to rebut that proof (see Matter of Kumstar, 66 NY2d 691 [1985]; Matter of Windheim, 192 AD2d 337 [1993], lv denied 83 NY2d 751 [1994]). There is no evidence in the record of fraud or conspiracy on the part of petitioners or appellant’s appointed guardian ad litem.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 351, 786 N.Y.S.2d 743, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-tizer-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack