In re Peck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Peck

148 A.D.2d 946, 538 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2503

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 10, 1989·No. Appeal No. 1·Published

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The intent of the testator at the time the will was executed, as found from the surrounding circumstances, is the proper focus in construing the will (see, Morris v Sickly, 133 NY 456; Matter of Falvey, 15 AD2d 415, affd 12 NY2d 759). The evidence presented clearly supports the Surrogate’s determination that the testator’s intent was that the charitable bequest go to the local heart fund, which was the Northern New York Heart Association, Inc. The Surrogate’s decision, however, does not determine the American Heart Association’s rights, if any, to the bequest as the result of Northern’s affiliation agreement with it. In this regard, the Surrogate correctly noted that the ultimate distribution of these funds will be resolved in the pending Supreme Court action. (Appeal from order of Oswego County Surrogate’s Court, Murray, S. — will construction.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The intent of the testator at the time the will was executed, as found from the surrounding circumstances, is the proper focus in construing the will (see, Morris v Sickly, 133 NY 456; Matter of Falvey, 15 AD2d 415, affd 12 NY2d 759). The evidence presented clearly supports the Surrogate’s determination that the testator’s intent was that the charitable bequest go to the local heart fund, which was the Northern New York Heart Association, Inc. The Surrogate’s decision, however, does not determine the American Heart Association’s rights, if any, to the bequest as the result of Northern’s affiliation agreement with it. In this regard, the Surrogate correctly noted that the ultimate distribution of these funds will be resolved in the pending Supreme Court action. (Appeal from order of Oswego County Surrogate’s Court, Murray, S. — will construction.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

In re Peck, 148 A.D.2d 946, 538 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

148 A.D.2d 946 (In re Peck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related