In re the Estate Thorne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate Thorne

108 A.D.2d 865, 485 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43190

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 108 A.D.2d 865 (In re the Estate Thorne) 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 Thorne, 108 A.D.2d 865, 485 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), dated August 11, 1983, which, after a nonjury trial, admitted the decedent’s will to probate.

Decree affirmed, with costs payable personally by appellant.

The determination of this case hinged on the credibility of the witnesses, and the findings of the Surrogate, who presided at the trial and heard all of the testimony, are entitled to great weight (Matter of Anonymous, 81 AD2d 865, 866; Matter of Gloria S. v Richard B., 80 AD2d 72, 76).

We decline to disturb the findings of the Surrogate, that the testator had sufficient testamentary capacity on the date of the execution of the will, that the will was validly executed, and that it was not procured by undue influence. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), dated August 11, 1983, which, after a nonjury trial, admitted the decedent’s will to probate.

Decree affirmed, with costs payable personally by appellant.

The determination of this case hinged on the credibility of the witnesses, and the findings of the Surrogate, who presided at the trial and heard all of the testimony, are entitled to great weight (Matter of Anonymous, 81 AD2d 865, 866; Matter of Gloria S. v Richard B., 80 AD2d 72, 76).

We decline to disturb the findings of the Surrogate, that the testator had sufficient testamentary capacity on the date of the execution of the will, that the will was validly executed, and that it was not procured by undue influence. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 865, 485 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-thorne-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack