In re the Estate of Tully

227 A.D.2d 288, 642 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5392
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 21, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 288 (In re the Estate of Tully) 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 Tully, 227 A.D.2d 288, 642 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5392 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S., upon decision of Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about August 4, 1995, which, inter alia, dismissed the objections of Charles Wadsworth and admitted to probate the Last Will and Testament of Alice Tully, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On April 27, 1972, testator executed her will, which provided a general legacy to objectant. On June 5, 1975, testator executed a codicil cancelling the provision granting objectant’s legacy, and in its place substituted a legacy to objectant’s daughter. Two attorney witnesses to the execution of the codicil testified as to all the required formalities of execution, or that it was the firm’s practice to follow those formalities. This satisfied the proponents’ burden on the issues of due execution and testamentary capacity (Matter of Collins, 60 NY2d 466).

The draftsman of the codicil testified unequivocally that the testator directed him to revoke objectant’s bequest, that he had no input into her decision, and that he had never met objectant prior to the time the codicil was executed. Objectant presented no evidence raising any issue of fact as to fraud, undue influence or mistake. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the objections, and admitting the will to probate, was properly granted (see, Matter of Goldberg, 180 AD2d 528; Matter of Philip, 173 AD2d 543; Matter of Witkowski, 85 AD2d 807, lv denied 56 NY2d 505). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Zabar
2026 NY Slip Op 30920(U) (New York Surrogate's Court, 2026)
Matter of Buschor (Moravec)
2024 NY Slip Op 33246(U) (New York Surrogate's Court, 2024)
Matter of Syms
2024 NY Slip Op 31942(U) (New York Surrogate's Court, 2024)
In re the Estate of Falk
47 A.D.3d 21 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Estate of de Heredia Ryan
34 A.D.3d 212 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Estate of Wilson
266 A.D.2d 164 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Estate of Zimmerman
264 A.D.2d 850 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Estate of Pirozzi
238 A.D.2d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Estate of Wagner
232 A.D.2d 180 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 A.D.2d 288, 642 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-tully-nyappdiv-1996.