In Re the Will of Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In Re the Will of Schwartz

2017 NY Slip Op 7309, 154 A.D.3d 540, 61 N.Y.S.3d 892

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2017

Docket914/09 -4723 4722 4721

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7309 (In Re the Will of Schwartz) 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 Will of Schwartz, 2017 NY Slip Op 7309, 154 A.D.3d 540, 61 N.Y.S.3d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County (Nelida Malave-Gonzalez, S.), entered on or about September 6, 2016, admitting the decedent’s will into probate, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Surrogate, entered November 2, 2016, and on or about July 25, 2016; which granted proponent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections and denied objectant’s motion and, insofar as appealed from, denied objectant’s motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the decree and nonappealable, respectively.

Proponent established prima facie that the decedent’s will was duly executed by submitting the attesting witnesses’ affidavits and the statements of the attorney who supervised the execution ceremony (see SCPA 1408; Matter of Halpern, 76 AD3d 429, 431 [1st Dept 2010], affd 16 NY3d 777 [2011]). Objectant failed to raise an issue of fact, citing no evidence of a material irregularity in the proceeding or of a lack of testamentary capacity on the decedent’s part (see Matter of Korn, 25 AD3d 379 [1st Dept 2006]).

Nor did objectant raise an issue of fact as to undue influence or fraud (see Matter of Schuman, 132 AD3d 551 [1st Dept 2015]). The close familial relationship between the decedent and proponent counterbalances any inference of undue influence. Moreover, in light of the evidence that the decedent relied on proponent for assistance with daily living for a long time, her grant to proponent of a power of attorney does not shift the burden to proponent to explain the challenged bequests. In any event, proponent fully explained the bequests as a product of the decedent’s grievances against objectant. As to fraud, object-ant failed to present evidence of any false statements made to the decedent by proponent or her agents that caused the decedent to change her will.

No appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument (see Lopez v Post Mgt. LLC, 68 AD3d 671 [1st Dept 2009]).

We have considered objectant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.

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

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County (Nelida Malave-Gonzalez, S.), entered on or about September 6, 2016, admitting the decedent’s will into probate, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Surrogate, entered November 2, 2016, and on or about July 25, 2016; which granted proponent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections and denied objectant’s motion and, insofar as appealed from, denied objectant’s motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the decree and nonappealable, respectively.

Proponent established prima facie that the decedent’s will was duly executed by submitting the attesting witnesses’ affidavits and the statements of the attorney who supervised the execution ceremony (see SCPA 1408; Matter of Halpern, 76 AD3d 429, 431 [1st Dept 2010], affd 16 NY3d 777 [2011]). Objectant failed to raise an issue of fact, citing no evidence of a material irregularity in the proceeding or of a lack of testamentary capacity on the decedent’s part (see Matter of Korn, 25 AD3d 379 [1st Dept 2006]).

Nor did objectant raise an issue of fact as to undue influence or fraud (see Matter of Schuman, 132 AD3d 551 [1st Dept 2015]). The close familial relationship between the decedent and proponent counterbalances any inference of undue influence. Moreover, in light of the evidence that the decedent relied on proponent for assistance with daily living for a long time, her grant to proponent of a power of attorney does not shift the burden to proponent to explain the challenged bequests. In any event, proponent fully explained the bequests as a product of the decedent’s grievances against objectant. As to fraud, object-ant failed to present evidence of any false statements made to the decedent by proponent or her agents that caused the decedent to change her will.

No appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument (see Lopez v Post Mgt. LLC, 68 AD3d 671 [1st Dept 2009]).

We have considered objectant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7309, 154 A.D.3d 540, 61 N.Y.S.3d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-will-of-schwartz-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack