In re the Estate of Vlock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Vlock

228 A.D.2d 353, 644 N.Y.2d 264, 644 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7327

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

DecidedJune 25, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 353 (In re the Estate of Vlock) 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 Vlock, 228 A.D.2d 353, 644 N.Y.2d 264, 644 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The Surrogate properly found that the claim against the estate of the decedent, a dentist, seeking a refund of $3,600, which had been paid in advance by claimant for contracted dental services which the decedent had failed to complete prior to his death, was established by clear and convincing evidence (see, Matter of Gordon, 8 NY2d 71, 76; Ausch v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 125 AD2d 43, 45, lv denied 70 NY2d 610). Claimant’s evidence, consisting of testimony of the dentists to whom decedent had transferred his practice prior to his death, and of the decedent’s office manager and assistant at the time [354]*354decedent was treating the claimant, clearly established that the work for which the claimant had paid $3,600 in advance to the decedent, described in a bill for professional services rendered, which was typed on the decedent’s letterhead and addressed to the claimant, bearing a notation in the decedent’s handwriting reading "Paid in Advance”, had not been performed by the decedent prior to his demise, thereby entitling claimant to the refund sought. We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

The Surrogate properly found that the claim against the estate of the decedent, a dentist, seeking a refund of $3,600, which had been paid in advance by claimant for contracted dental services which the decedent had failed to complete prior to his death, was established by clear and convincing evidence (see, Matter of Gordon, 8 NY2d 71, 76; Ausch v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 125 AD2d 43, 45, lv denied 70 NY2d 610). Claimant’s evidence, consisting of testimony of the dentists to whom decedent had transferred his practice prior to his death, and of the decedent’s office manager and assistant at the time [354]*354decedent was treating the claimant, clearly established that the work for which the claimant had paid $3,600 in advance to the decedent, described in a bill for professional services rendered, which was typed on the decedent’s letterhead and addressed to the claimant, bearing a notation in the decedent’s handwriting reading "Paid in Advance”, had not been performed by the decedent prior to his demise, thereby entitling claimant to the refund sought. We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 353, 644 N.Y.2d 264, 644 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-vlock-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack