In re the Estate of Partridge

141 Misc. 2d 159, 532 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1988 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 554
CourtNew York Surrogate's Court
DecidedJuly 29, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 141 Misc. 2d 159 (In re the Estate of Partridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court 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 Partridge, 141 Misc. 2d 159, 532 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1988 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 554 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1988).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Alfred J. Weiner, S.

In this contested probate proceeding, objectants seek an order suppressing the use of tape-recorded conversations between the decedent and objectant, Ismay Swammy, during the trial and at any examinations before trial. The petitioner opposed the application.

The purported last will was executed on March 16, 1987 and [160]*160the tape recordings of conversations between objectant and decedent took place 6 to 9 years prior to the date of execution. The objectant was hired by decedent as a housekeeper in the late 1970’s. Petitioner contends that objectant, from the time of his hiring, began a course of conduct in fraud and undue influence against decedent that resulted in the execution of decedent’s last will.

Objectants contend that the relationship in time between the tape recordings and the execution of the will is too remote for the tape recordings to be admissible, and additionally, that they have no probative value on the issues of fraud and undue influence.

Except upon the showing of special circumstances, the examination before trial in a contested probate is confined to a three-year period prior to the date of the propounded instrument and two years thereafter, or to the date of decedent’s death, whichever is the shorter period. (Matter of Frank, 165 Misc 411; 22 NYCRR 207.27 [Uniform Rules for Trial Courts].) However, this is not an inflexible rule and the courts, where special circumstances exist, are not required to follow it. (Matter of Kaufmann, 11 AD2d 759.) Special circumstances include allegations of a scheme of fraud or a continuing course of conduct or undue influence, evidenced by facts. (Matter of Brady, 273 App Div 968; Matter of Carpenter, 252 App Div 885; Matter of Griffith, 48 Misc 2d 1048.) Furthermore, an examination before trial was allowed for a time period commencing when a proponent took up residence with the decedent, beyond the three years prior to the will’s execution, when objections were filed alleging fraud and undue influence. (In re O’Brien, 45 NYS2d 682 [Sur Ct, Westchester County].)

The court finds that the contentions raised by petitioner constitute special circumstances to enable petitioner to utilize the tape recordings at an examination before trial. The application to suppress the use of the tape recordings at trial is denied, without prejudice to renew at the time of trial.

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

Related

Matter of Landau
2024 NY Slip Op 34301(U) (New York Surrogate's Court, 2024)
In re the Estate of Po Jun Chin
55 Misc. 3d 1092 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2017)
Fiddle v. Estate of Fiddle
13 Misc. 3d 827 (New York Surrogate's Court, 2006)
In re the Estate of McGurty
151 Misc. 2d 42 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 Misc. 2d 159, 532 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1988 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-partridge-nysurct-1988.