Matter of Shui Yuk Mak Chin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Shui Yuk Mak Chin

2017 NY Slip Op 6079, 153 A.D.3d 628, 57 N.Y.S.3d 421

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

DecidedAugust 9, 2017

Docket2015-01377

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6079 (Matter of Shui Yuk Mak Chin) 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

Matter of Shui Yuk Mak Chin, 2017 NY Slip Op 6079, 153 A.D.3d 628, 57 N.Y.S.3d 421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Kelly, S.), dated March 10, 2015, as, upon an order of the same court dated January 22, 2015, granting the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections to probate, admitted the last will and testament of the decedent to probate.

Ordered that the notice of appeal from the order dated January 22, 2015, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the decree (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the objections to the probate of the decedent’s will by demonstrating that the will was duly executed, the decedent had testamentary capacity, and no undue influence or fraud was exercised on the decedent (see Matter of Capuano, 93 AD3d 666, 668 [2012]; Matter of Engelhardt, 88 AD3d 997 [2011]; Matter of Klingman, 60 AD3d 949, 950 [2009]; Matter of Moskoff, 41 AD3d 481, 482 [2007]). In opposition, the objectant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Matter of West, 147 AD3d 592, 593 [2017]; Matter of Mele, 113 AD3d 858, 860-861 [2014]; Matter of DiDomenico, 101 AD3d 998, 1000 [2012]; Matter of Zirinsky, 43 AD3d 946, 948 [2007]).

The objectant’s contention that a bequest in the will to the objectant’s former wife should be invalidated was properly rejected by the Surrogate’s Court (see EPTL 3-4.1 [a]; Matter of Coffed, 46 NY2d 514, 519 [1979]; Matter of North, 32 AD2d 862, 863 [1969]).

Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.

Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Kelly, S.), dated March 10, 2015, as, upon an order of the same court dated January 22, 2015, granting the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections to probate, admitted the last will and testament of the decedent to probate.

Ordered that the notice of appeal from the order dated January 22, 2015, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the decree (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the objections to the probate of the decedent’s will by demonstrating that the will was duly executed, the decedent had testamentary capacity, and no undue influence or fraud was exercised on the decedent (see Matter of Capuano, 93 AD3d 666, 668 [2012]; Matter of Engelhardt, 88 AD3d 997 [2011]; Matter of Klingman, 60 AD3d 949, 950 [2009]; Matter of Moskoff, 41 AD3d 481, 482 [2007]). In opposition, the objectant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Matter of West, 147 AD3d 592, 593 [2017]; Matter of Mele, 113 AD3d 858, 860-861 [2014]; Matter of DiDomenico, 101 AD3d 998, 1000 [2012]; Matter of Zirinsky, 43 AD3d 946, 948 [2007]).

The objectant’s contention that a bequest in the will to the objectant’s former wife should be invalidated was properly rejected by the Surrogate’s Court (see EPTL 3-4.1 [a]; Matter of Coffed, 46 NY2d 514, 519 [1979]; Matter of North, 32 AD2d 862, 863 [1969]).

Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.

Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6079, 153 A.D.3d 628, 57 N.Y.S.3d 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-shui-yuk-mak-chin-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack