In Re the Estate of Jaret

New York Court of Appeals

In Re the Estate of Jaret

213 N.E.2d 889, 17 N.Y.2d 450, 266 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 932

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 30, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 213 N.E.2d 889 (In Re the Estate of Jaret) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals 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 Jaret, 213 N.E.2d 889, 17 N.Y.2d 450, 266 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 932 (N.Y. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable out of the estate.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Van Voorhis, Burke and Bergan. Judge Scileppi dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum in which Judge Fuld concurs: The language of the will and codicils does not contain a clear and unambiguous direction against apportionment of taxes on all legacies (Matter of Pepper, 307 N. Y. 242). However, since such a direction is present concerning taxes due on the bequests preceding article Fourth (including the bequest to the wife in the third codicil which amended article Third of the will), taxes on these legacies should be paid out of the actual residuary estate. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, for proceedings not inconsistent with this memorandum.

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

Order affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable out of the estate.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Van Voorhis, Burke and Bergan. Judge Scileppi dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum in which Judge Fuld concurs: The language of the will and codicils does not contain a clear and unambiguous direction against apportionment of taxes on all legacies (Matter of Pepper, 307 N. Y. 242). However, since such a direction is present concerning taxes due on the bequests preceding article Fourth (including the bequest to the wife in the third codicil which amended article Third of the will), taxes on these legacies should be paid out of the actual residuary estate. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and the matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, for proceedings not inconsistent with this memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 N.E.2d 889, 17 N.Y.2d 450, 266 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-jaret-ny-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack