In re the Estate of Yenei

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Yenei

132 A.D.2d 870, 518 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49347

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

DecidedJuly 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 132 A.D.2d 870 (In re the Estate of Yenei) 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 Yenei, 132 A.D.2d 870, 518 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Tompkins County (Barrett, S.), entered May 9, 1986, which admitted to probate an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of decedent.

Respondents contend that the document offered for probate as the last will and testament of decedent was improperly admitted to probate in that decedent failed to declare to each of the attesting witnesses that the instrument to which he was affixing his signature was his last will and testament (EPTL 3-2.1 [a] [3]). The determination of Surrogate’s Court must be sustained. The record contains sufficient evidence of publication of the will by decedent. The witnesses to the will attested to decedent’s declaration of the instrument as his will. The testifying witness had typed the will and gave it to decedent to read and review when he came to her employer’s office to sign it. She was then asked to witness the will and decedent declared that she was acceptable as a witness for this purpose.

The attestation clause raised the presumption of due execution. The other circumstances attendant on its signing are also indicative of its due execution (see, Matter of Collins, 60 NY2d 466, 471).

Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Weiss and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

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

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Tompkins County (Barrett, S.), entered May 9, 1986, which admitted to probate an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of decedent.

Respondents contend that the document offered for probate as the last will and testament of decedent was improperly admitted to probate in that decedent failed to declare to each of the attesting witnesses that the instrument to which he was affixing his signature was his last will and testament (EPTL 3-2.1 [a] [3]). The determination of Surrogate’s Court must be sustained. The record contains sufficient evidence of publication of the will by decedent. The witnesses to the will attested to decedent’s declaration of the instrument as his will. The testifying witness had typed the will and gave it to decedent to read and review when he came to her employer’s office to sign it. She was then asked to witness the will and decedent declared that she was acceptable as a witness for this purpose.

The attestation clause raised the presumption of due execution. The other circumstances attendant on its signing are also indicative of its due execution (see, Matter of Collins, 60 NY2d 466, 471).

Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Weiss and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.2d 870, 518 N.Y.S.2d 219, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-yenei-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack