In re the Estate of Baruch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Baruch

286 A.D. 869, 142 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4392

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

DecidedJune 20, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 286 A.D. 869 (In re the Estate of Baruch) 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 the Estate of Baruch, 286 A.D. 869, 142 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4392 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, as adjudges that an antenuptial agreement executed by appellant is legal, valid and binding and that she has no right of election under section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law to take an intestate share of decedent’s estate against the provisions of his last will and testament. Decree, insofar as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with costs, payable by appellant personally. There is a complete absence of proof that the agreement was the product of undue influence, inequality, overreaching, deception or mistake. We are in complete agreement with the determination of the learned Surrogate that the execution of the antenuptial agreement was appellant’s “free and untrammeled act” and that there is no credible evidence in the record that she “ was taken advantage of in any respect whatsoever ”. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldock and Ughetta, JJ. [205 Misc. 1122.]

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

Appeal from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, as adjudges that an antenuptial agreement executed by appellant is legal, valid and binding and that she has no right of election under section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law to take an intestate share of decedent’s estate against the provisions of his last will and testament. Decree, insofar as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with costs, payable by appellant personally. There is a complete absence of proof that the agreement was the product of undue influence, inequality, overreaching, deception or mistake. We are in complete agreement with the determination of the learned Surrogate that the execution of the antenuptial agreement was appellant’s “free and untrammeled act” and that there is no credible evidence in the record that she “ was taken advantage of in any respect whatsoever ”. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldock and Ughetta, JJ. [205 Misc. 1122.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D. 869, 142 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-baruch-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack