In re the Estate of Duryee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Duryee

100 A.D.2d 549

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 549 (In re the Estate of Duryee) 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 Duryee, 100 A.D.2d 549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding, the appeal is from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated June 29,1981, which, after a jury trial, denied the application to admit the will to probate. 11 Decree modified, on the law, by deleting the second and third decretal paragraphs finding that the execution of the will was caused and procured by the fraud and/or undue influence of Karen Pastore and/or Mary Sandorff. As so modified, decree affirmed, without costs or disbursements. 11 The jury’s determination that at the time the will was executed the testator was not of sound mind is supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Therefore, the proceeding to admit the will to probate was properly denied. There was, however, insufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that the execution of the will was procured by fraud and/or undue influence. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In a probate proceeding, the appeal is from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated June 29,1981, which, after a jury trial, denied the application to admit the will to probate. 11 Decree modified, on the law, by deleting the second and third decretal paragraphs finding that the execution of the will was caused and procured by the fraud and/or undue influence of Karen Pastore and/or Mary Sandorff. As so modified, decree affirmed, without costs or disbursements. 11 The jury’s determination that at the time the will was executed the testator was not of sound mind is supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Therefore, the proceeding to admit the will to probate was properly denied. There was, however, insufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that the execution of the will was procured by fraud and/or undue influence. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-duryee-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack