In re Feinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Feinberg

149 A.D.2d 510, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4600

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

DecidedApril 10, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 510 (In re Feinberg) 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 Feinberg, 149 A.D.2d 510, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a contested probate proceeding, the objectants appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), entered December 24, 1987, which, after a nonjury trial, ordered that the objections to probate be dismissed and admitted the will, dated April 30, 1986, to probate..

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

The determination of the Surrogate, who presided at the trial and heard all of the testimony, is entitled to great weight. Unless shown to be clearly erroneous, it should not be set aside on appeal (see, Matter of Thorne, 108 AD2d 865; Matter of Poggemeyer, 87 AD2d 822).

We' find that the conclusions of the Surrogate are fully supported by the record. The proponents clearly sustained their burden of proving the testamentary capacity of the testator and disproving the objections to the will (see, Matter of Kumstar, 66 NY2d 691). Mollen, P. J., Kunzeman, Spatt and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In a contested probate proceeding, the objectants appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), entered December 24, 1987, which, after a nonjury trial, ordered that the objections to probate be dismissed and admitted the will, dated April 30, 1986, to probate..

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

The determination of the Surrogate, who presided at the trial and heard all of the testimony, is entitled to great weight. Unless shown to be clearly erroneous, it should not be set aside on appeal (see, Matter of Thorne, 108 AD2d 865; Matter of Poggemeyer, 87 AD2d 822).

We' find that the conclusions of the Surrogate are fully supported by the record. The proponents clearly sustained their burden of proving the testamentary capacity of the testator and disproving the objections to the will (see, Matter of Kumstar, 66 NY2d 691). Mollen, P. J., Kunzeman, Spatt and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 510, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-feinberg-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack