In re the Estate of Cottone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Cottone

49 A.D.2d 940, 374 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11224

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 940 (In re the Estate of Cottone) 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 Cottone, 49 A.D.2d 940, 374 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding, petitioner appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, entered August 5, 1974, which, after a jury trial, denied probate to a purported will on the grounds that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity and that, at the time of the execution of the purported will, she was under the constraint of undue influence. Decree reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs to petitioner [941]*941payable out of the estate and proceeding remanded to the Surrogate’s Court, on the law, with directions to admit the propounded instrument to probate and for further proceedings. The special verdict to the effect that testatrix lacked testamentary capacity is without foundation in the record. The evidence reveals that the testatrix was a woman who, despite her age, jealously guarded her independence, managed her own household and maintained her own circle of friends. This evidence establishes the level of mental capacity which the law requires (see Marx v McGlynn, 88 NY 357, 370; Matter of Hollenbeck, 65 Misc 2d 796, 799, affd 37 AD2d 922). The evidence presented by the contestant on the issue of undue influence was insufficient (see Matter of Walther, 6 NY2d 49). Gulotta, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Margett, JJ., concur; Latham, J., dissents and votes to affirm the decree.

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

In a probate proceeding, petitioner appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, entered August 5, 1974, which, after a jury trial, denied probate to a purported will on the grounds that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity and that, at the time of the execution of the purported will, she was under the constraint of undue influence. Decree reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs to petitioner [941]*941payable out of the estate and proceeding remanded to the Surrogate’s Court, on the law, with directions to admit the propounded instrument to probate and for further proceedings. The special verdict to the effect that testatrix lacked testamentary capacity is without foundation in the record. The evidence reveals that the testatrix was a woman who, despite her age, jealously guarded her independence, managed her own household and maintained her own circle of friends. This evidence establishes the level of mental capacity which the law requires (see Marx v McGlynn, 88 NY 357, 370; Matter of Hollenbeck, 65 Misc 2d 796, 799, affd 37 AD2d 922). The evidence presented by the contestant on the issue of undue influence was insufficient (see Matter of Walther, 6 NY2d 49). Gulotta, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Margett, JJ., concur; Latham, J., dissents and votes to affirm the decree.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 940, 374 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-cottone-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack