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

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

DecidedJune 21, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 980 (In re the Estate of Sage) 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 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 980, 451 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-sage-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack