In re the Estate of See

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of See

241 A.D. 525, 272 N.Y.S. 111, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8292

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

DecidedMay 9, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 A.D. 525 (In re the Estate of See) 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 See, 241 A.D. 525, 272 N.Y.S. 111, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner made appellant her witness. Even assuming that the witness was hostile, we are of the opinion that it was error to admit in evidence letters written by appellant which tended strongly to discredit her as a witness. (Becker v. Koch, 104 N. Y. 394, 402.) Decedent’s physician, Van Alstyne, was permitted to give testimony which tended “ to disgrace the memory of the patient” (decedent). (Civ. Prac. Act, § 354.) This too was error. (Mulligan v. Sinski, 156 App. Div. 35; affd., 214 N. Y. 678.) However, we affirm the decree for the reason that it does not appear to us that these errors were necessarily prejudicial to the exceptant. (Surr. Ct. Act, § 294.) On the whole record we conclude that the result would have been the same had the testimony referred to been rejected. (Matter of Newcomb, 192 N. Y. 238.) The decree should be modified in accordance with the stipulation, and as modified affirmed, with costs to respondent against appellant.

All concur.

Decree modified by reducing the amount ordered paid by the Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company to the sum of $2,520.86 and interest, and as modified affirmed, under the provisions of section 294 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, with costs to the respondent against appellant.

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

Per Curiam.

Petitioner made appellant her witness. Even assuming that the witness was hostile, we are of the opinion that it was error to admit in evidence letters written by appellant which tended strongly to discredit her as a witness. (Becker v. Koch, 104 N. Y. 394, 402.) Decedent’s physician, Van Alstyne, was permitted to give testimony which tended “ to disgrace the memory of the patient” (decedent). (Civ. Prac. Act, § 354.) This too was error. (Mulligan v. Sinski, 156 App. Div. 35; affd., 214 N. Y. 678.) However, we affirm the decree for the reason that it does not appear to us that these errors were necessarily prejudicial to the exceptant. (Surr. Ct. Act, § 294.) On the whole record we conclude that the result would have been the same had the testimony referred to been rejected. (Matter of Newcomb, 192 N. Y. 238.) The decree should be modified in accordance with the stipulation, and as modified affirmed, with costs to respondent against appellant.

All concur.

Decree modified by reducing the amount ordered paid by the Rochester Trust and Safe Deposit Company to the sum of $2,520.86 and interest, and as modified affirmed, under the provisions of section 294 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, with costs to the respondent against appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D. 525, 272 N.Y.S. 111, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-see-nyappdiv-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack