In re the Estate of Beaumont

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Beaumont

288 A.D.2d 69, 733 N.Y.S.2d 21, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10932

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

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

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 69, 733 N.Y.S.2d 21, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-beaumont-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack