In re the Estate of Castagnello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Castagnello

300 A.D.2d 8, 749 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11569

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 8 (In re the Estate of Castagnello) 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 Castagnello, 300 A.D.2d 8, 749 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about May 2, 2001, which granted petitioner executors’ motion to dismiss appellant’s objections to their accounting, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Surrogate properly concluded that the testator’s intention to exclude appellant from sharing in the residuary estate could be discerned from the four corners of the will (see Matter of Thall, 18 NY2d 186, 192; Matter of Fabbri, 2 NY2d 236, 240) and that consideration of extrinsic evidence was thus neither necessary nor appropriate (see Matter of King, 198 AD2d 115). Article Second of the will expressly states that no provision has been made for appellant in article Seventh, which disposes of the residuary estate, since the testator had not had any contact with appellant, his son, in many years and did not know his whereabouts. It would not be consonant with these [9]*9clearly stated and explained intentions to read article Seventh of the will as creating a trust or otherwise providing for appellant.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about May 2, 2001, which granted petitioner executors’ motion to dismiss appellant’s objections to their accounting, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Surrogate properly concluded that the testator’s intention to exclude appellant from sharing in the residuary estate could be discerned from the four corners of the will (see Matter of Thall, 18 NY2d 186, 192; Matter of Fabbri, 2 NY2d 236, 240) and that consideration of extrinsic evidence was thus neither necessary nor appropriate (see Matter of King, 198 AD2d 115). Article Second of the will expressly states that no provision has been made for appellant in article Seventh, which disposes of the residuary estate, since the testator had not had any contact with appellant, his son, in many years and did not know his whereabouts. It would not be consonant with these [9]*9clearly stated and explained intentions to read article Seventh of the will as creating a trust or otherwise providing for appellant.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 8, 749 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-castagnello-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack