In re the Probate of the Will of Delano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of the Will of Delano

38 A.D.2d 769, 327 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5621

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 769 (In re the Probate of the Will of Delano) 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 Probate of the Will of Delano, 38 A.D.2d 769, 327 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decree of Surrogate’s Court, entered in Essex County, which admitted to probate the last will and testament and four codicils of Florence Delano, deceased. Appellants object to the probate of the will. They claim reversible error was committed by the trial court when it foreclosed testimony by an attorney, not the attorney who prepared the will and the codicils, of a telephone conversation he had with decedent on February 3, 1968 some three years after the execution of the last codicil. Decedent had called the witness seeking legal advice about her will. Appellants claim the conversation was admissible under CPLR 4503 (subd. [b]). We find no error in the court’s ruling. (CPLR 4503, subd. [a]; Matter of Matheson, 283 N. Y. 44.) Decree affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Cooke, Sweeney and Simons, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decree of Surrogate’s Court, entered in Essex County, which admitted to probate the last will and testament and four codicils of Florence Delano, deceased. Appellants object to the probate of the will. They claim reversible error was committed by the trial court when it foreclosed testimony by an attorney, not the attorney who prepared the will and the codicils, of a telephone conversation he had with decedent on February 3, 1968 some three years after the execution of the last codicil. Decedent had called the witness seeking legal advice about her will. Appellants claim the conversation was admissible under CPLR 4503 (subd. [b]). We find no error in the court’s ruling. (CPLR 4503, subd. [a]; Matter of Matheson, 283 N. Y. 44.) Decree affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Cooke, Sweeney and Simons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 769, 327 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-will-of-delano-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack