In re the Estate of Punch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Punch

24 A.D.2d 725, 263 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3358

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 725 (In re the Estate of Punch) 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 Punch, 24 A.D.2d 725, 263 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to construe the will of Sarah Punch, deceased, the petitioner Jack Punch, individually, appeals from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court,' Rockland County, entered March 3, 1965 after trial, upon the court’s decision, as construed Paragraph “ Twenty-fourth ” of the will to mean that the residuary estate of the decedent “is to be divided among the [decedent’s] three surviving siblings equally”. Decree modified on the facts by amending its third decretal paragraph so as to provide that the residuary, including that portion bequeathed to Minnie Kaufman, is to be divided among the issue of the decedent’s other three named beneficiaries, per stirpes. As so modified, decree, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs to all parties filing separate briefs, payable out of the estate. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. The clear intent of the testatrix was that any lapsed legacy contained in the residuary estate be divided among the surviving beneficiaries of the residue. (See Matter of Dammann, 12 N Y 2d 500; Matter of Urchs, 20 A D 2d 291.) It appears that all four of the named residuary legatees predeceased testatrix; and that all (except Minnie Kaufman) left issue surviving the decedent. Accordingly, modification of the decree is required in order to state correctly the facts as they existed at the time of the testatrix’ death. Christ, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to construe the will of Sarah Punch, deceased, the petitioner Jack Punch, individually, appeals from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court,' Rockland County, entered March 3, 1965 after trial, upon the court’s decision, as construed Paragraph “ Twenty-fourth ” of the will to mean that the residuary estate of the decedent “is to be divided among the [decedent’s] three surviving siblings equally”. Decree modified on the facts by amending its third decretal paragraph so as to provide that the residuary, including that portion bequeathed to Minnie Kaufman, is to be divided among the issue of the decedent’s other three named beneficiaries, per stirpes. As so modified, decree, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs to all parties filing separate briefs, payable out of the estate. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. The clear intent of the testatrix was that any lapsed legacy contained in the residuary estate be divided among the surviving beneficiaries of the residue. (See Matter of Dammann, 12 N Y 2d 500; Matter of Urchs, 20 A D 2d 291.) It appears that all four of the named residuary legatees predeceased testatrix; and that all (except Minnie Kaufman) left issue surviving the decedent. Accordingly, modification of the decree is required in order to state correctly the facts as they existed at the time of the testatrix’ death. Christ, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 725, 263 N.Y.S.2d 447, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-punch-nyappdiv-1965.