In re the Estate of Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Katz

192 A.D.2d 327, 595 N.Y.S.2d 475

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

DecidedApril 1, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 327 (In re the Estate of Katz) 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 Katz, 192 A.D.2d 327, 595 N.Y.S.2d 475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about May 1, 1991, which, after a jury trial, admitted the Last Will and Testatment of the decedent, Beatrice Katz, dated March 30, 1983, to probate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury verdict, finding that paragraph B of Article third of the Last Will and Testament of the decedent, Beatrice Katz wherein the decedent devised all of her jewelry to her only daughter, Linda Osserman, was not the product of undue influence by her sister and brother-in-law, Selma and Louis Slater, and/or the decedent’s attorney, Barbara Goldstein, as their agent, and admitting the will to Probate was supported by the weight of the credible evidence adduced at trial (see, Hoffson v Orentreich, 168 AD2d 243, 244).

Objectant-appellant, Peter Adler, the decedent’s son, failed to meet his burden of proving undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence (Matter of Klitgaard, 83 AD2d 651).

Nor did the Surrogate’s refusal to charge the jury, at the objectant’s request, as to whether the will was a product of fraud, constitute reversible error where, as here, the objectant failed to prove the alleged fraud by clear and convincing evidence and where, as a result thereof, there was insufficient evidence to raise a question of fact on that issue, so as to warrant submission of the fraud claim to the jury (see, Matter of Schaffer, 148 AD2d 540; Matter of Evanchuk, 145 AD2d 559, 560).

We have reviewed the objectant’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Wallach, JJ.

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

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about May 1, 1991, which, after a jury trial, admitted the Last Will and Testatment of the decedent, Beatrice Katz, dated March 30, 1983, to probate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jury verdict, finding that paragraph B of Article third of the Last Will and Testament of the decedent, Beatrice Katz wherein the decedent devised all of her jewelry to her only daughter, Linda Osserman, was not the product of undue influence by her sister and brother-in-law, Selma and Louis Slater, and/or the decedent’s attorney, Barbara Goldstein, as their agent, and admitting the will to Probate was supported by the weight of the credible evidence adduced at trial (see, Hoffson v Orentreich, 168 AD2d 243, 244).

Objectant-appellant, Peter Adler, the decedent’s son, failed to meet his burden of proving undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence (Matter of Klitgaard, 83 AD2d 651).

Nor did the Surrogate’s refusal to charge the jury, at the objectant’s request, as to whether the will was a product of fraud, constitute reversible error where, as here, the objectant failed to prove the alleged fraud by clear and convincing evidence and where, as a result thereof, there was insufficient evidence to raise a question of fact on that issue, so as to warrant submission of the fraud claim to the jury (see, Matter of Schaffer, 148 AD2d 540; Matter of Evanchuk, 145 AD2d 559, 560).

We have reviewed the objectant’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 327, 595 N.Y.S.2d 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-katz-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack