In re the Estate of Trotner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Trotner

54 A.D.2d 717, 387 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14318

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 717 (In re the Estate of Trotner) 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 Trotner, 54 A.D.2d 717, 387 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a probate proceeding, the objectant, the son of the testatrix, appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated December 18, 1975, which, after a hearing, inter alia, admitted the will to probate. Decree reversed, on the facts and in the interest of justice, and proceeding remanded to the Surrogate’s Court for a new hearing, with costs to abide the event. The Surrogate’s decision was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Furthermore, it appears that the result reached was based, in large part, upon the assumption that the objectant had, in fact, been bequeathed one fourth of the estate’s assets. This assumption is unsupported by the record. Accordingly, a new hearing is [718]*718necessary, inter alia, for further consideration of the question whether the testatrix did indeed make reasonable provision in her will for the objectant. Latham, Acting P. J., Hargett, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a probate proceeding, the objectant, the son of the testatrix, appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated December 18, 1975, which, after a hearing, inter alia, admitted the will to probate. Decree reversed, on the facts and in the interest of justice, and proceeding remanded to the Surrogate’s Court for a new hearing, with costs to abide the event. The Surrogate’s decision was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Furthermore, it appears that the result reached was based, in large part, upon the assumption that the objectant had, in fact, been bequeathed one fourth of the estate’s assets. This assumption is unsupported by the record. Accordingly, a new hearing is [718]*718necessary, inter alia, for further consideration of the question whether the testatrix did indeed make reasonable provision in her will for the objectant. Latham, Acting P. J., Hargett, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 717, 387 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-trotner-nyappdiv-1976.