In re the Estate of Middlemark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Middlemark

250 A.D.2d 852, 672 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6058

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 852 (In re the Estate of Middlemark) 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 Middlemark, 250 A.D.2d 852, 672 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 1420 the appeal is from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated April 11, 1997, as, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to its original determination which, inter alia, excluded certain trust proceeds from the decedent’s net probate estate.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

A review of the decedent’s will and the post-nuptial agreement executed by the deceased and the appellant establishes that the Surrogate properly excluded the proceeds of a certain trust fund from the decedent’s net estate. The appellant’s contention that the trust constituted a “testamentary substi[853]*853tute”, which should have been included in the decedent’s net estate, is without merit (cf., Matter of Katzenstein, 56 Misc 2d 16, affd 32 AD2d 611). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 1420 the appeal is from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated April 11, 1997, as, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to its original determination which, inter alia, excluded certain trust proceeds from the decedent’s net probate estate.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

A review of the decedent’s will and the post-nuptial agreement executed by the deceased and the appellant establishes that the Surrogate properly excluded the proceeds of a certain trust fund from the decedent’s net estate. The appellant’s contention that the trust constituted a “testamentary substi[853]*853tute”, which should have been included in the decedent’s net estate, is without merit (cf., Matter of Katzenstein, 56 Misc 2d 16, affd 32 AD2d 611). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 852, 672 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-middlemark-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack