In re the Estate of Grubert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Grubert

139 A.D.2d 741, 527 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4328

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

DecidedApril 25, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 A.D.2d 741 (In re the Estate of Grubert) 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 Grubert, 139 A.D.2d 741, 527 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a probate proceeding, the objectant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, S.), entered August 13, 1986, as denied her motion for summary judgment disallowing probate of the will.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Although an objectant in a proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court may invoke the provisions for summary judgment (Matter of Pascal, 309 NY 108), the granting of such relief is rare (Matter of Rounds, 47 Misc 2d 877). We find that a question of fact exists in this case as to whether the attorney draftsman merely guided the physically infirm testatrix’s hand when she executed her will or whether he actually signed the will in her stead. The resolution of this issue is necessary before a determination can be made as to whether the document may be admitted to probate (see, EPTL 3-2.1; Rohan, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 17B, EPTL 3-2.1, at 327; Matter of Kearney, 69 App Div 481; Matter of Bitzer, 124 Misc 432; cf., Matter of Helgesen, 80 Misc 2d 726). Kunzeman, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

— In a probate proceeding, the objectant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, S.), entered August 13, 1986, as denied her motion for summary judgment disallowing probate of the will.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Although an objectant in a proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court may invoke the provisions for summary judgment (Matter of Pascal, 309 NY 108), the granting of such relief is rare (Matter of Rounds, 47 Misc 2d 877). We find that a question of fact exists in this case as to whether the attorney draftsman merely guided the physically infirm testatrix’s hand when she executed her will or whether he actually signed the will in her stead. The resolution of this issue is necessary before a determination can be made as to whether the document may be admitted to probate (see, EPTL 3-2.1; Rohan, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 17B, EPTL 3-2.1, at 327; Matter of Kearney, 69 App Div 481; Matter of Bitzer, 124 Misc 432; cf., Matter of Helgesen, 80 Misc 2d 726). Kunzeman, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 741, 527 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-grubert-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack