In re Love

New York Court of Appeals

In re Love

386 N.E.2d 830, 46 N.Y.2d 784, 413 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2470

DecidedDecember 20, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 386 N.E.2d 830 (In re Love) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Love, 386 N.E.2d 830, 46 N.Y.2d 784, 413 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2470 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable out of the estate, for the reasons stated by Surrogate Millard L. Midonick. The record does not provide any basis for concluding that the evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to meet the standard of clear and convincing evidence required to establish that the decedent made valid inter vivos gifts to her daughter.

Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable out of the estate, for the reasons stated by Surrogate Millard L. Midonick. The record does not provide any basis for concluding that the evidence is insufficient, as a matter of law, to meet the standard of clear and convincing evidence required to establish that the decedent made valid inter vivos gifts to her daughter.

Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 N.E.2d 830, 46 N.Y.2d 784, 413 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-love-ny-1978.