In re the Probate of the Will of Gongwer

29 Misc. 2d 122, 220 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2807
New York Surrogate's Court·Decided June 2, 1961·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

John J. Dillon, S.

Proponent’s motion under rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice to strike out as sham and frivolous paragraph “third” of respondent’s answer and objections is granted.

Paragraph “ first ” of said pleading asserts undue influence and coercion in the execution of the propounded instruments and paragraph “ second ” raises an issue as to due execution. By paragraph “third” respondent, a son of decedent, challenges [123] the validity of an Ohio divorce decree obtained by decedent and the validity of decedent’s remarriage to the person who is the proponent and sole beneficiary under the propounded instruments.

The validity of proponent’s marriage to decedent is unrelated to the validity of the propounded instruments as the last will of decedent. Proponent is directed, however, to cause a supplemental citation to be issued and served upon the person from whom decedent obtained a decree of divorce who is determined to be a necessary party to this proceeding.

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

In re the Probate of the Will of Gongwer, 29 Misc. 2d 122, 220 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2807 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1961).

29 Misc. 2d 122 (In re the Probate of the Will of Gongwer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Estate of Walker
32 Misc. 2d 794 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1961)