Matter of De Camaret

2007 NY Slip Op 34618(U)

• Court: Surrogate's Court, New York County
• Decided: October 10, 2007
• Docket: File No. 2807/2001
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Roth, S.

Opinion

Matter of De Camaret 2007 NY Slip Op 34618(U) October 10, 2007 Surrogate's Court, New York County Docket Number: File No. 2807/2001 Judge: Roth, S. Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SURROGATE'S COURT : NEW YORK COUNTY ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -x Prob ate Proc eedi ng, Wil l of File No. 2807 /200 1 FRANCINE MEYER DE CAMARET, a/k/ a FRANCINE MEYER,

Dec ease d. ---- -x ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

R OT H , S .

the esta te of In this con test ed pro bate proc eed ing in ,:t::"> : _()

son, Pat rick Ger sch el,~ as} % Fran cine Mey er De Cam aret , dec ede nt's __. C.,.)

the nom inat ed exec utor. es> obje cted to prob ate on the grou nd that infl uen ce. Prop one nts in proc ured the wil l by exe rcis ing undu e issi ng such obj ecti on. turn have mov ed for sum mary judg men t dism by two sons and a Tes tatr ix died on July 28, 2001 , surv ived mil lion dol lars . Und er dau ghte r, leav ing an esta te of ove r 17 ely a wil l (dat ed Apr il the inst rum ents offe red for prob ate, nam mbe r 12, 2000 , and Feb ruar y 20, 2000 ) and two cod icil s (dat ed Dece her resi dua ry esta te to 16, 2000 , resp ecti vely ), dece den t left had esta blis hed , and name d the Eme rald Fou nda tion , a cha rity she atto rne y and the draf tsm an thre e exe cuto rs, nam ely, her long -tim e her fina ncia l adv isor , of this and othe r wil ls, And rew Heym ann; ); and her acco unta nt, Gera rd Heym ann (the draf tsm an's bro ther ry Rob ert Lad islaw . Eme rald Fou ndat ion was also the resi dua

[* 1] benefic iary under three prior instrum ents, dated May 13, 1996,

June 25, 1998, and Septemb er 17, 1999 respect ively, which names

Andrew Heymann executo r, either alone or to serve with others. A

still earlier instrum ent, dated Decembe r 2, 1991, not drafted by

Mr. Heymann or any affilia ted attorne y, leaves decede nt's

residua ry estate to two differe nt chariti es. Objecta nt is not a

benefic iary under any of the above mention ed instrum ents.

Propone nts move to dismiss the objecti on based on lack of

standing and the absence of any triable issue of fact.

We first address objecta nt's standin g. Under the governi ng

statute , SCPA 1410, any distrib utee whose interes t is adverse ly

affected by probate of the instrum ent may file objecti ons.

Propone nts nonethe less contend that objecta nt lacks standin g

because he testifie d at a deposit ion before trial that he does

not believe that the 1991 instrum ent was obtaine d by undue

influen ce. Propone nts contend such testimo ny constit utes an

admissio n that the 1991 instrum ent is valid, and, therefo re, that

it will ultimat ely be admitte d to probate . Under this theory,

objecta nt has no pecunia ry interes t in decede nt's estate because

he is not a benefic iary under the 1991 instrum ent and thus lacks

standing to object to probate of any subsequ ent instrum ent.

[* 2] This argument is without merit. First, objectan t's

testimony regarding the 1991 instrume nt is not a waiver of his

right to contest it (see Matter of DeCamere t, 6 Misc 3d 407, in

which objectan t's brother released "any future challeng e against

the estate of the releasee s that the releasor was deprived of all

or any part of an expected inheritan ce"). Second, the test is

not objectan t's interest under wills prior to the propound ed

instrumen t; rather, the test is objectan t's interest under the

laws of intestacy . As the propound ed instrume nt leaves objectan t

less than he would receive in intestacy , he is adversel y affected

by it and has standing to object to probate (see Matter of

Lippner, 104 Misc 2d 819).

Proponen ts next argue that objectan t has raised no triable

issue of fact on the question of undue influenc e. It is well

settled that summary judgment may be granted in a probate

proceedin g (Matter of Cioffi, 117 AD2d 860), even where such

proceedin g involves issues of fraud and undue influence (Matter

of Goldberg, 180 AD2d 528), and that the objectan t has the burden

of proof to establish undue influence (Matter of Walther,6 NY2d

49; Matter of Schilling er, 258 NY 156). Here, objectant has not offered any evidence of any coercive influence affecting decedent 's freedom in executing the

[* 3] r

exc use for his fai lur e to do so. pro pou nde d ins tru me nt and no · lue nce bas ed upo n 'nf er un d ue inf Ins tea d, he wa nts the Co urt to 1

sio nal rel ati ons hip s wit h And rew dec ede nt's per son al and pro fes her atio n of the m as exe cut ors and and Ge rar d Hey man n, her des ign nts . ily in the pro pou nde d ins tru me fai lur e to pro vid e for her fam s cou rt's dec isio n in Ma tter of In sup por t, obj ect ant cit es thi dra ftsm an tes tif ied tha t Sin ger , 2 Mis c 3d 665 , whe re the an' s two son s, whom she did not dec ede nt nom ina ted the dra ftsm chi ldr en, who wer e the res idu ary kno w, in pre fer enc e to her two ina ted as fid uci ari es und er the leg ate es and who had bee n nom nom ina ted pen ult ima te ins tru me nt. Und er suc h circ um sta nce s, the nt the inf ere nce tha t his app oin tme exe cut or was una ble to off set . In the sem ina l cas e of was the pro duc t of ove rre ach ing tter of We ins toc k (40 NY2d 1), ove rre ach ing by an att orn ey, Ma an had jus t met dec ede nt, dra fte d fat her and son att orn eys , who bot h as exe cut ors , ins tru me nt whi ch nom ina ted them id wit hst and ing tha t dec ede nt had tol d the m of his wis h to avo not atto rne ys had exe cut ors ' fee s. The Cou rt of Ap pea ls fou nd the g ful l dis clo sur e and fai r dea lin bre ach ed the ir obl iga tio ns of fra ud. and wer e gui lty of con str uct ive ish es tha t dec ede nt had lon g By con tra st, thi s rec ord est abl ina ted exe cut ors , she had a rel ati ons hip s wit h all thr ee nom

[* 4] ,..

has no ben efi cia l stro ng wi ll (co nfi rm ed by her dau ght er, who

ins tru me nts ), she was est ran ged int ere st und er the pro pou nde d ant m ob jec tan t and his chi ldr en for man y yea rs (wh ich obj ect fro n ed to ben efi t cha rity rat her tha con ced es) and tha t she int end 1 ent ary ins tru me nts dat ing to 199 fam ily (as set for th in tes tam on ). As thi s Co urt sta ted in and a 199 7 vid eot ape d dec lar ati J 27, (co l 1), aff d 180 A. D. 2d Ma tter of Go ldb erg , 2/2 0/9 1 NYL do. , "Co ncl uso ry sta tem ent s, sur mis e and spe cul ati on wil l not 528 al er wi ll me re dis pu tat ion s, den ials and ass ert ion s tha t tri Ne ith d). iss ues exi st" (ci tat ion s om itte ent s' mo tion for sum mar y Bas ed upo n the for ego ing , pro pon ion to pro bat e is gra nte d. jud gm ent dis mis sin g the obj ect

Se ttle dec ree .

S U R R O G A T E

Dat ed: Oct obe r / 0 , 200 7

5 [* 5]