In re the Estate of Brady

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Brady

39 A.D.2d 605, 332 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4805

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

DecidedApril 24, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 605 (In re the Estate of Brady) 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 Brady, 39 A.D.2d 605, 332 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to probate as the decedent's will an instrument dated November 26, 1968, (1) the contestants appeal from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated May 20, 1971, as in part granted the proponent’s motion for summary judgment, i.e., as to the objections of improper execution, undue influence and fraud; and (2) the proponent cross-appeals from so much of the order as denied the motion as to the objection of lack of testamentary capacity. Order modified by adding thereto a provision that the proponent’s motion is also denied as to the objections of improper execution and undue influence and that a trial of those issues together with the issue of testamentary capacity shall proceed forthwith. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants-respondents against respondent-appellant personally. In our opinion, the proponent has failed to meet his burden of establishing the nonexistence of any triable issue of fact, except as to the objection of fraud (CPLR 3212, subd. [b]), and the record indicates that some of the proffered objections which are herein directed to be tried may be valid. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to probate as the decedent's will an instrument dated November 26, 1968, (1) the contestants appeal from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated May 20, 1971, as in part granted the proponent’s motion for summary judgment, i.e., as to the objections of improper execution, undue influence and fraud; and (2) the proponent cross-appeals from so much of the order as denied the motion as to the objection of lack of testamentary capacity. Order modified by adding thereto a provision that the proponent’s motion is also denied as to the objections of improper execution and undue influence and that a trial of those issues together with the issue of testamentary capacity shall proceed forthwith. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants-respondents against respondent-appellant personally. In our opinion, the proponent has failed to meet his burden of establishing the nonexistence of any triable issue of fact, except as to the objection of fraud (CPLR 3212, subd. [b]), and the record indicates that some of the proffered objections which are herein directed to be tried may be valid. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 605, 332 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-brady-nyappdiv-1972.