In re the Estate of Kumstar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Kumstar

105 A.D.2d 747, 481 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21921

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.2d 747 (In re the Estate of Kumstar) 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 Kumstar, 105 A.D.2d 747, 481 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a contested probate proceeding, the proponent of the purported will of the deceased Rose B. Kumstar, dated September 1, 1982 appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Orange County (Green, J.), dated January 5,1984, which, after a jury trial, inter alia, denied probate to the purported will.

Decree affirmed, with costs payable by appellant personally.

The evidence on the record was sufficient to raise a jury question as to the issues of incompetence and undue influence, and there is no reason to disturb the jury’s findings. We have considered appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Moflen, P. J., Titone, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In a contested probate proceeding, the proponent of the purported will of the deceased Rose B. Kumstar, dated September 1, 1982 appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Orange County (Green, J.), dated January 5,1984, which, after a jury trial, inter alia, denied probate to the purported will.

Decree affirmed, with costs payable by appellant personally.

The evidence on the record was sufficient to raise a jury question as to the issues of incompetence and undue influence, and there is no reason to disturb the jury’s findings. We have considered appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Moflen, P. J., Titone, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 747, 481 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-kumstar-nyappdiv-1984.