In re the Estate of Lemle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Lemle

30 A.D.2d 785, 291 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3502

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 785 (In re the Estate of Lemle) 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 Lemle, 30 A.D.2d 785, 291 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered January 12, 1968, striking affirmative defenses unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements payable out of the estate to all parties filing briefs, and motion to strike denied. In a proceeding by a widow to elect to take against the will, the petitioner, being faced with an antenuptial agreement, seeks to avoid it on the ground of fraud. The respondent executors have pleaded estoppel and laches. An antenuptial agreement is a contract and an action to avoid it is subject to the same defenses as any other contract. It may well be that due to the nature of the contract the same facts that would establish either estoppel or laches in a suit on another type of contract would not prevail, but this does not affect the availability of the defenses. Concur — Stevens, J. P., Eager, Steuer, Tilzer and McGivern, JJ. [55 Misc 2d 640.]

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

Order entered January 12, 1968, striking affirmative defenses unanimously reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements payable out of the estate to all parties filing briefs, and motion to strike denied. In a proceeding by a widow to elect to take against the will, the petitioner, being faced with an antenuptial agreement, seeks to avoid it on the ground of fraud. The respondent executors have pleaded estoppel and laches. An antenuptial agreement is a contract and an action to avoid it is subject to the same defenses as any other contract. It may well be that due to the nature of the contract the same facts that would establish either estoppel or laches in a suit on another type of contract would not prevail, but this does not affect the availability of the defenses. Concur — Stevens, J. P., Eager, Steuer, Tilzer and McGivern, JJ. [55 Misc 2d 640.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 785, 291 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-lemle-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack