In re the Estate of Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Roberts

215 A.D.2d 666, 628 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5386

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

DecidedMay 22, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 666 (In re the Estate of Roberts) 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 Roberts, 215 A.D.2d 666, 628 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a contested probate proceeding, the objectants appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), dated March 17, 1993, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, granted probate of a certain will signed by the testator on March 17, 1987.

Ordered that the decree is reversed, on the law, with costs payable by the respondent personally, and probate is denied.

There was no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the testator and the attesting witnesses that the instrument they were being asked to sign as witnesses was testamentary in character (see, EPTL 3-2.1 [a] [3]; see also, Matter of Pulvermacher, 305 NY 378, 383; Matter of Turell, 166 NY 330, 337).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the objectants’ remaining contention. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

In a contested probate proceeding, the objectants appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), dated March 17, 1993, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, granted probate of a certain will signed by the testator on March 17, 1987.

Ordered that the decree is reversed, on the law, with costs payable by the respondent personally, and probate is denied.

There was no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the testator and the attesting witnesses that the instrument they were being asked to sign as witnesses was testamentary in character (see, EPTL 3-2.1 [a] [3]; see also, Matter of Pulvermacher, 305 NY 378, 383; Matter of Turell, 166 NY 330, 337).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the objectants’ remaining contention. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 666, 628 N.Y.S.2d 500, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-roberts-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack