In re the Estate of Seymour

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Seymour

190 A.D.2d 739

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 8, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— In a probate proceeding, the objectant, Yvonne H. Clarke, appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), dated September 14, 1990, which, after a jury trial, inter alia, admitted the will of Stephanie Seymour, dated January 3, 1985, to probate.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the objectant personally.

Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, the record supports the jury’s finding that the will dated January 3, 1985, was not procured by the undue influence of Bernice Baptiste. The record is devoid of any evidence, direct or circumstantial, of undue influence, and it is well settled that "no inference of undue influence may be drawn from the fact that proponents had the opportunity and motive, absent evidence that such influence was actually utilized” (Matter of Bush, 85 AD2d 887, 889; see also, Matter of Posner, 160 AD2d 943, 944; Matter of Walther, 6 NY2d 49, 55).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for [740]*740appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

— In a probate proceeding, the objectant, Yvonne H. Clarke, appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), dated September 14, 1990, which, after a jury trial, inter alia, admitted the will of Stephanie Seymour, dated January 3, 1985, to probate.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the objectant personally.

Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, the record supports the jury’s finding that the will dated January 3, 1985, was not procured by the undue influence of Bernice Baptiste. The record is devoid of any evidence, direct or circumstantial, of undue influence, and it is well settled that "no inference of undue influence may be drawn from the fact that proponents had the opportunity and motive, absent evidence that such influence was actually utilized” (Matter of Bush, 85 AD2d 887, 889; see also, Matter of Posner, 160 AD2d 943, 944; Matter of Walther, 6 NY2d 49, 55).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for [740]*740appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

In re the Estate of Seymour, 190 A.D.2d 739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

190 A.D.2d 739 (In re the Estate of Seymour) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related