In re the Estate of Stiles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Stiles

233 A.D.2d 888, 649 N.Y.S.2d 864

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1996

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 888 (In re the Estate of Stiles) 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 Stiles, 233 A.D.2d 888, 649 N.Y.S.2d 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Decedent died nine days after she and respondent executed a separation agreement containing language that "clearly and unequivocally manifests an intent on the part of the spouses that they are no longer beneficiaries under each other’s wills” (Matter of Maruccia, 54 NY2d 196, 205; cf., Matter of Chmiel, 164 Misc 2d 854; Matter of Foundas, 112 Mise 2d 973). Because the separation agreement revoked the testamentary disposition of decedent to respondent in a joint will executed by them in 1983, the Surrogate erred in not granting petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. We modify the order accordingly despite the absence of a cross appeal (see, Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110-112). (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Surrogate’s Court, Hannigan, S.— Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Decedent died nine days after she and respondent executed a separation agreement containing language that "clearly and unequivocally manifests an intent on the part of the spouses that they are no longer beneficiaries under each other’s wills” (Matter of Maruccia, 54 NY2d 196, 205; cf., Matter of Chmiel, 164 Misc 2d 854; Matter of Foundas, 112 Mise 2d 973). Because the separation agreement revoked the testamentary disposition of decedent to respondent in a joint will executed by them in 1983, the Surrogate erred in not granting petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. We modify the order accordingly despite the absence of a cross appeal (see, Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110-112). (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Surrogate’s Court, Hannigan, S.— Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 888, 649 N.Y.S.2d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-stiles-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack