In re the Estate of Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Wilson

266 A.D.2d 164, 698 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12373

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 164 (In re the Estate of Wilson) 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 Wilson, 266 A.D.2d 164, 698 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about August 13, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the motion by the proponent of the subject will for summary judgment, in part, dismissing objectant-appellant’s objections to probate premised on lack of testamentary capacity, and fraud and undue influence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Surrogate properly found that proponent-respondent made out a prima facie case for dismissal of objectant’s claims of lack of testamentary capacity, and fraud and undue influence, and objectant’s consequent burden to demonstrate the existence of triable issues was not met by his conclusory and speculative assertions of a vast conspiracy by the will beneficiaries (see, Matter of Bustanoby, 262 AD2d 407; Matter of Tully, 227 AD2d 288; Matter of Bartel, 214 AD2d 476, 477). Moreover, objectant has failed to demonstrate that any purpose would be served by additional discovery or that there are “special circumstances” warranting expansion of the so-called three-two rule (see, 22 NYCRR 207.27). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, 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 on or about August 13, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the motion by the proponent of the subject will for summary judgment, in part, dismissing objectant-appellant’s objections to probate premised on lack of testamentary capacity, and fraud and undue influence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Surrogate properly found that proponent-respondent made out a prima facie case for dismissal of objectant’s claims of lack of testamentary capacity, and fraud and undue influence, and objectant’s consequent burden to demonstrate the existence of triable issues was not met by his conclusory and speculative assertions of a vast conspiracy by the will beneficiaries (see, Matter of Bustanoby, 262 AD2d 407; Matter of Tully, 227 AD2d 288; Matter of Bartel, 214 AD2d 476, 477). Moreover, objectant has failed to demonstrate that any purpose would be served by additional discovery or that there are “special circumstances” warranting expansion of the so-called three-two rule (see, 22 NYCRR 207.27). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 164, 698 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-wilson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack