In re the Estate of Beaumont

288 A.D.2d 69, 733 N.Y.S.2d 21, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10932
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Decree, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County (Lee Holzman, S.), entered December 5, 2000, admitting the subject will to probate upon a directed verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon this record, no reasonable person could find that the will was the product of undue influence or that the testator otherwise lacked testamentary capacity (see, Matter of Kumstar, 66 NY2d 691; Matter of Spielberger, 250 AD2d 425, lv denied 92 NY2d 816). That objectant, a lawyer admitted to the Minnesota bar appearing pro se, was restricted in the presentation of her own testimony by CPLR 4519, does not mean that she was prevented from presenting any competent evidence in support of her case. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

In re the Estate of Beaumont, 288 A.D.2d 69, 733 N.Y.S.2d 21, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

288 A.D.2d 69 (In re the Estate of Beaumont) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Estate of Press
30 A.D.3d 154 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)