In re the Estate of Tumarkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Tumarkin

235 A.D.2d 307, 653 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 511

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 307 (In re the Estate of Tumarkin) 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 Tumarkin, 235 A.D.2d 307, 653 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered February 2, 1996, which, inter alia, construed a will clause leaving to petitioner all property he "held jointly” with the decedent to include not just the properties held by the two as joint tenants but "all property of which they were co-owners, irrespective of the form in which title to the properties was held”, unanimously aifirmed, without costs.

The clause in question would be superfluous if construed to include only jointly held property since such property would, in any event, pass to the surviving tenant by operation of law (see, 24 NY Jur 2d, Cotenancy and Partition, § 22). Accordingly, absent evidence of a different intent, we construe the clause, as did the Surrogate, to include all property co-owned by the decedent and petitioner. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered February 2, 1996, which, inter alia, construed a will clause leaving to petitioner all property he "held jointly” with the decedent to include not just the properties held by the two as joint tenants but "all property of which they were co-owners, irrespective of the form in which title to the properties was held”, unanimously aifirmed, without costs.

The clause in question would be superfluous if construed to include only jointly held property since such property would, in any event, pass to the surviving tenant by operation of law (see, 24 NY Jur 2d, Cotenancy and Partition, § 22). Accordingly, absent evidence of a different intent, we construe the clause, as did the Surrogate, to include all property co-owned by the decedent and petitioner. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 307, 653 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-tumarkin-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack