Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/In re the Estate of Iodice

In re the Estate of Iodice

228 A.D.2d 680, 644 N.Y.2d 992, 644 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7432
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 24, 1996·Published

Opinion

Contrary to the objectants’ contention, there was no evidence of undue influence exercised by the testator’s wife over the testator (see, Children’s Aid Socy. v Loveridge, 70 NY 387, [681]*681394; Matter of Kumstar, 66 NY2d 691, rearg denied 67 NY2d 647; Matter of Walther, 6 NY2d 49; Matter of Bianco, 195 AD2d 457, 458). As a result, the court properly set aside the verdict and directed that the will be admitted to probate (see, CPLR 4404 [a]; Micallef v Miehle Co., 39 NY2d 376, 380-381; Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 131-132). Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In re the Estate of Iodice, 228 A.D.2d 680, 644 N.Y.2d 992, 644 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 680 (In re the Estate of Iodice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re the Estate of Kumstar
487 N.E.2d 271 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Micallef v. Miehle Co.
348 N.E.2d 571 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
Children's Aid Society v. . Loveridge
70 N.Y. 387 (New York Court of Appeals, 1877)
In re the Probate of the Will of Walther
159 N.E.2d 665 (New York Court of Appeals, 1959)
Nicastro v. Park
113 A.D.2d 129 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
In re the Estate of Bianco
195 A.D.2d 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)