In re the Estate of Sage

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Sage

88 A.D.2d 980, 451 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17359

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 21, 1982·Published

Opinion

— In a probate proceeding, the objectant appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, SO, dated October 23, 1980, which admitted the will to probate. Decree affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable by appellant personally. In this contested probate proceeding the Surrogate reserved decision on the objectant’s motion to dismiss at the close of the proponent’s case for failure to make out a prima facie case because only one.of the attesting witnesses had testified up to that point. Such deficiency in proof was satisfied by the testimony of the second attesting witness received on the objectant’s case (see National Bank of North Amer. v Systems Home Improvement, 69 AD2d 557, 562). The evidence in the record adequately supports the Surrogate’s determination. We have examined the objectant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

— In a probate proceeding, the objectant appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, SO, dated October 23, 1980, which admitted the will to probate. Decree affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable by appellant personally. In this contested probate proceeding the Surrogate reserved decision on the objectant’s motion to dismiss at the close of the proponent’s case for failure to make out a prima facie case because only one.of the attesting witnesses had testified up to that point. Such deficiency in proof was satisfied by the testimony of the second attesting witness received on the objectant’s case (see National Bank of North Amer. v Systems Home Improvement, 69 AD2d 557, 562). The evidence in the record adequately supports the Surrogate’s determination. We have examined the objectant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Bracken, JJ., concur.

In re the Estate of Sage, 88 A.D.2d 980, 451 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

88 A.D.2d 980 (In re the Estate of Sage) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related