In re the Estate of Arrathoon

49 A.D.3d 325, 853 N.Y.2d 72

Opinion

The court properly determined that respondent, who was petitioner and decedent’s daughter, did not meet her burden of demonstrating that petitioner abandoned decedent during his lifetime (see Matter of Riefberg, 58 NY2d 134 [1983]; Matter of Maiden, 284 NY 429 [1940]; Matter of Gardner, 176 AD2d 142 [1991], lv dismissed 78 NY2d 1124 [1991]). The evidence established that petitioner and decedent, who had been married for 65 years, were each forced by circumstances to live with, or near, the child who could provide them with emotional and practical support, that neither spouse abandoned the other, and that their separate living arrangements were necessitated by their advanced age and failing health.

[326]*326We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

In re the Estate of Arrathoon, 49 A.D.3d 325, 853 N.Y.2d 72 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

49 A.D.3d 325 (In re the Estate of Arrathoon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re the Estate of Maiden
31 N.E.2d 889 (New York Court of Appeals, 1940)
In re the Estate of Riefberg
446 N.E.2d 424 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
In re the Estate of Gardner
176 A.D.2d 142 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)