In re the Probate of the Will of Simpson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of the Will of Simpson

26 A.D.2d 848, 274 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3340

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 848 (In re the Probate of the Will of Simpson) 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 Simpson, 26 A.D.2d 848, 274 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Broome County which denied probate to decedent’s purported will on the ground that proponent did not sustain the burden of proof respecting testamentary capacity. The purported will was dated June 27, 1962. By it, decedent’s entire estate was given to her son. A purported will made in 1959, also offered for probate, in [849]*849a proceeding not yet completed, provided for decedent’s estate to be held in a spendthrift trust for the benefit of the son, allegedly a physically disabled alcoholic, with remainder to decedent’s grandchildren and her sister. In December, 1962, decedent was adjudicated incompetent. She died November 3, 1963, when she was over 82 years old. There was impressive evidence of decedent’s physical weakness by reason of a number of ailments and of her mental confusion, failure of understanding and general ineompeteney, due principally to cerebral deterioration caused by progressive general and cerebral arteriosclerosis, commencing long prior to the date of the purported will and continuing thereafter until her death. This proof was elicited from her attending physician, from a number of her nurses, from other professional people and from neighbors and friends. The Surrogate was completely warranted in accepting it as establishing testamentary incapacity and there is, in our view, no merit in appellant’s contention that his evidence should have been credited instead and contestants’ case ignored because contestants produced no proof of incompetency predicated on direct observation of decedent’s behavior and condition at the precise time of her subscription of the purported will. Decree affirmed, with costs to respondents payable from the estate. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Broome County which denied probate to decedent’s purported will on the ground that proponent did not sustain the burden of proof respecting testamentary capacity. The purported will was dated June 27, 1962. By it, decedent’s entire estate was given to her son. A purported will made in 1959, also offered for probate, in [849]*849a proceeding not yet completed, provided for decedent’s estate to be held in a spendthrift trust for the benefit of the son, allegedly a physically disabled alcoholic, with remainder to decedent’s grandchildren and her sister. In December, 1962, decedent was adjudicated incompetent. She died November 3, 1963, when she was over 82 years old. There was impressive evidence of decedent’s physical weakness by reason of a number of ailments and of her mental confusion, failure of understanding and general ineompeteney, due principally to cerebral deterioration caused by progressive general and cerebral arteriosclerosis, commencing long prior to the date of the purported will and continuing thereafter until her death. This proof was elicited from her attending physician, from a number of her nurses, from other professional people and from neighbors and friends. The Surrogate was completely warranted in accepting it as establishing testamentary incapacity and there is, in our view, no merit in appellant’s contention that his evidence should have been credited instead and contestants’ case ignored because contestants produced no proof of incompetency predicated on direct observation of decedent’s behavior and condition at the precise time of her subscription of the purported will. Decree affirmed, with costs to respondents payable from the estate. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 848, 274 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-will-of-simpson-nyappdiv-1966.