In re the Estate of Richardson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Richardson

43 A.D.3d 1352, 842 N.Y.S.2d 628

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1352 (In re the Estate of Richardson) 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 Richardson, 43 A.D.3d 1352, 842 N.Y.S.2d 628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Allegany County (Thomas P Brown, S.), entered August 2, 2006. The order granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections and admitted decedent’s will to probate.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Surrogate’s Court properly granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections filed by decedent’s mother and admitted decedent’s will to probate. “Summary judgment in contested probate proceedings, while rare, should not be withheld where, as here, [the] proponent makes out a prima facie case for probate and [the] objectant[ ] fail[s] to raise a material issue of fact” (Matter of Coniglio, 242 AD2d 901, 901-902 [1997]). The Surrogate properly concluded that the will was executed in conformance with EPTL 3-2.1 and that objectant failed to provide any evi[1353]*1353dence of fraud, duress, or undue influence (see Matter of Scalone, 170 AD2d 507 [1991]; see generally Matter of Collins, 124 AD2d 48, 53-54 [1987]). Finally, the Surrogate did not abuse his discretion in denying objectant’s request to disqualify petitioner’s attorney based on an alleged conflict of interest (see generally S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 443-445 [1987]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Allegany County (Thomas P Brown, S.), entered August 2, 2006. The order granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections and admitted decedent’s will to probate.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Surrogate’s Court properly granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections filed by decedent’s mother and admitted decedent’s will to probate. “Summary judgment in contested probate proceedings, while rare, should not be withheld where, as here, [the] proponent makes out a prima facie case for probate and [the] objectant[ ] fail[s] to raise a material issue of fact” (Matter of Coniglio, 242 AD2d 901, 901-902 [1997]). The Surrogate properly concluded that the will was executed in conformance with EPTL 3-2.1 and that objectant failed to provide any evi[1353]*1353dence of fraud, duress, or undue influence (see Matter of Scalone, 170 AD2d 507 [1991]; see generally Matter of Collins, 124 AD2d 48, 53-54 [1987]). Finally, the Surrogate did not abuse his discretion in denying objectant’s request to disqualify petitioner’s attorney based on an alleged conflict of interest (see generally S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 443-445 [1987]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 1352, 842 N.Y.S.2d 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-richardson-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack