In re the Estate of Mancuso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Mancuso

38 A.D.3d 664, 830 N.Y.S.2d 666

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 664 (In re the Estate of Mancuso) 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 Mancuso, 38 A.D.3d 664, 830 N.Y.S.2d 666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a contested probate proceeding, the proponent Michael Pizzi appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Tomei, S.), dated March 1, 2006, which, upon a jury verdict finding that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity at the time of execution of the will and that the will was procured by undue influence, denied probate of the will.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs.

The jury’s finding that the decedent’s will was procured by undue influence was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence.

The proponent’s remaining contentions are without merit, do not require reversal, or need not be reached in light of our determination on the issue of undue influence. Crane, J.P, Florio, Fisher and Dickerson, 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 Michael Pizzi appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Tomei, S.), dated March 1, 2006, which, upon a jury verdict finding that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity at the time of execution of the will and that the will was procured by undue influence, denied probate of the will.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs.

The jury’s finding that the decedent’s will was procured by undue influence was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence.

The proponent’s remaining contentions are without merit, do not require reversal, or need not be reached in light of our determination on the issue of undue influence. Crane, J.P, Florio, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 664, 830 N.Y.S.2d 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-mancuso-nyappdiv-2007.