In re the Estate of Becker

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Estate of Becker

32 Misc. 2d 653, 223 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4027

DecidedJanuary 15, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Misc. 2d 653 (In re the Estate of Becker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court 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 Becker, 32 Misc. 2d 653, 223 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4027 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Harry G. Herman, S.

The court is asked to construe decedent’s will, more particularly paragraph “ third ” thereof, to determine the disposition of certain bequests contained therein for the benefit of a niece and nephew who predeceased the decedent. The pertinent portions of paragraph “ third ” are [654]*654hereinafter quoted: ‘ ‘ All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real, personal and mixed, I direct my executors to convert into cash, and to distribute the same as follows: * * # To Emily Bathgate Bartlett, now residing at No. 136 East 64th Street, New York City, New York, the sum of Five thousand Dollars ($5,000). To C. Bathgate Becker, now residing at Stamford Delaware County, New York, the sum of Five thousand dollars ($5,000).”

Section 29 of the Decedent Estate Law is inapplicable for the two legatees who predeceased do not fall within a category protected by said statute.

While courts seek to avoid an intestacy, this is not possible when the legacies that lapsed form a part of the residuary estate. The court determines that intestacy results with respect to the two lapsed legacies; therefore, they shall be distributed accordingly. (Matter of Bogardus, 5 Misc 2d 607.)

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

Harry G. Herman, S.

The court is asked to construe decedent’s will, more particularly paragraph “ third ” thereof, to determine the disposition of certain bequests contained therein for the benefit of a niece and nephew who predeceased the decedent. The pertinent portions of paragraph “ third ” are [654]*654hereinafter quoted: ‘ ‘ All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real, personal and mixed, I direct my executors to convert into cash, and to distribute the same as follows: * * # To Emily Bathgate Bartlett, now residing at No. 136 East 64th Street, New York City, New York, the sum of Five thousand Dollars ($5,000). To C. Bathgate Becker, now residing at Stamford Delaware County, New York, the sum of Five thousand dollars ($5,000).”

Section 29 of the Decedent Estate Law is inapplicable for the two legatees who predeceased do not fall within a category protected by said statute.

While courts seek to avoid an intestacy, this is not possible when the legacies that lapsed form a part of the residuary estate. The court determines that intestacy results with respect to the two lapsed legacies; therefore, they shall be distributed accordingly. (Matter of Bogardus, 5 Misc 2d 607.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Misc. 2d 653, 223 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-becker-nysurct-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack