In re Hall

185 A.D.2d 322, 586 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9044
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 20, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 185 A.D.2d 322 (In re Hall) 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 Hall, 185 A.D.2d 322, 586 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

In a probate proceeding, the objectant Stanley Thompson appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Brewster, S.), dated March 27, 1990, which denied his motion to vacate a decree of the same court dated June 22, 1987, admitting the decedent’s will to probate.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

"A party seeking to set aside a probate decree entered upon his consent must show that such consent was obtained by fraud or overreaching (Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143), was the product of misrepresentation or misconduct (Matter of Westberg, 254 App Div 320), or that newly-discovered evidence, clerical error or other sufficient cause justifies the reopening of the decree (Matter of Hinderson, 4 Misc 2d 559, affd 2 AD2d 682; 1A Warren’s Heaton, Surrogate Counts, § 121)” (Matter of Leeper, 53 AD2d 1054, 1055). Here, the appellant read the waiver and consent to probate before signing it, and he "therefore is chargeable with knowledge of its contents and [323]*323effect” (Matter of Boyle, 107 AD2d 807, 808). The appellant’s unsubstantiated and conclusory allegations that he did not understand the significance of the waiver and consent, and that he was suffering from bereavement and unspecified medical problems, do not provide a sufficient basis for vacatur of the probate decree (see, Matter of Boyle, supra; Matter of Leeper, supra).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions, and find that they are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Parada
2017 NY Slip Op 2995 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
In re Coccia
59 A.D.3d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Estate of Titus
39 A.D.3d 1203 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Estate of Gifford
28 A.D.3d 953 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re Estate Ancona
17 A.D.3d 584 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Estate of Hunter
190 Misc. 2d 593 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2002)
In re the Estate of Orlowski
281 A.D.2d 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Estate of Sisko
270 A.D.2d 276 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
185 A.D.2d 322, 586 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hall-nyappdiv-1992.