In re the Estate of Rollin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Rollin

27 A.D.2d 745, 277 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4817

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 745 (In re the Estate of Rollin) 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 Rollin, 27 A.D.2d 745, 277 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated December 20, 1965, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to each respondent or group of respondents filing a separate brief, payable out of the estate. The principal claim advanced by appellant is that a waiver of right of election under section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law, concededly executed by him, is invalid because it was induced by constructive fraud. That contention was rejected by the trier of the facts and in our opinion the record amply sustains that determination (cf. Amend v. Hurley, 293 N. Y. 587, 594). Appellant’s other contentions have been examined and we find no grounds therein for disturbing the decree below. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated December 20, 1965, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to each respondent or group of respondents filing a separate brief, payable out of the estate. The principal claim advanced by appellant is that a waiver of right of election under section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law, concededly executed by him, is invalid because it was induced by constructive fraud. That contention was rejected by the trier of the facts and in our opinion the record amply sustains that determination (cf. Amend v. Hurley, 293 N. Y. 587, 594). Appellant’s other contentions have been examined and we find no grounds therein for disturbing the decree below. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 745, 277 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-rollin-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack