In re the Probate of the Will of Ogrodowicz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of the Will of Ogrodowicz

277 A.D.2d 944

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 944 (In re the Probate of the Will of Ogrodowicz) 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 Ogrodowicz, 277 A.D.2d 944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree and order reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: The court charged in part: “ If the opinion of the man claiming superior information in matters of handwriting is accepted, it follows that the two witnesses named in the will testified falsely upon matters as to which they inescapably knew the truth. That is the issue presented to you.” We believe that the charge on that subject was erroneous and so prejudicial as to require a reversal and a new trial. (See Smith v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 170 N. Y. 394; Segaloff v. Interurban Street Ry. Co., 102 N. Y. S. 509, and Beers v. Metropolitan Street By. Co., 88 App. Div. 9.) All concur. (Appeal from decree of Erie Surrogate's Court after trial in Supreme Court dismissing the objections to a will, and admitting the will to probate; also appeal from order of Erie Trial Term denying motion by objectors for a new trial.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.

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

Decree and order reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. Memorandum: The court charged in part: “ If the opinion of the man claiming superior information in matters of handwriting is accepted, it follows that the two witnesses named in the will testified falsely upon matters as to which they inescapably knew the truth. That is the issue presented to you.” We believe that the charge on that subject was erroneous and so prejudicial as to require a reversal and a new trial. (See Smith v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 170 N. Y. 394; Segaloff v. Interurban Street Ry. Co., 102 N. Y. S. 509, and Beers v. Metropolitan Street By. Co., 88 App. Div. 9.) All concur. (Appeal from decree of Erie Surrogate's Court after trial in Supreme Court dismissing the objections to a will, and admitting the will to probate; also appeal from order of Erie Trial Term denying motion by objectors for a new trial.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-will-of-ogrodowicz-nyappdiv-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack