You are here: / / Question of Fact Existed About Whether Lost or Destroyed Will Had Been...

Question of Fact Existed About Whether Lost or Destroyed Will Had Been Revoked.

A question of fact precluded summary judgment denying probate where there was evidence the decedent did not intend to revoke a will that could not be found after her death.  There is a presumption that a will that was last in decedent’s possession but can not be found after death has been revoked.  But in this case there was evidence that the decedent was, close in time to her death, taking steps to dispose of her property in accordance with her will, which expressly disinherited one of her four children.  Matter of DiSiena, et al, 515209, Third Dept. 2-28-13

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD DESPITE RETURNING TO WORK AT PREINJURY WAGES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RADIATION ONCOLOGIST, THE SOLE SHAREHOLDER IN PLANTIFF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, WHICH PAID PLAINTIFF ONCOLOGIST’S SALARY, SUCCESSFULLY SUED THE HOSPITAL WHICH EMPLOYED HIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE COURT, IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, HELD THAT PLAINTIFF’S SALARY WAS NOT A CORPORATE EXPENSE AND THEREFORE WAS RECOVERABLE AS LOST PROFITS IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (THIRD DEPT).
Denial of For Cause Juror Challenges Required Reversal
PLAINTIFF’S “INADEQUATE FALL-PROTECTION” CAUSES OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT FROM A NURSE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A PHYSICIAN (THIRD DEPT). ​
Defense Counsel’s Failure to Investigate the Victim’s Medical Condition (Which Would Have Allowed More Effective Cross-Examination of the People’s Expert and the Victim), Failure to Object to Testimony Which May Have Been More Prejudicial than Probative (and which Clearly Required a Jury Instruction Limiting Its Use), and Failure to Object to Improper Comments Made by the Prosecutor, Deprived Defendant of Effective Assistance of Counsel
THE TRANSFER OF DEFENDANT’S CASE TO A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE EXPLANATION OF A CONFLICT WITHIN THE DA’S OFFICE; HOWEVER, THE TRANSFER BACK TO THE DA’S OFFICE WAS NOT BASED ON AN EXPLANATION WHY THE CONFLICT WAS NO LONGER A PROBLEM; THE TRANSFER BACK TO THE DA’S OFFICE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT). ​
OFFICER’S PURSUIT, FORCIBLE STOP, DETENTION AND ARREST OF FLEEING DEFENDANT NOT JUSTIFIED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS AND ITEMS SEIZED IN SEARCHES PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
FAILURE TO WARN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF’S CLOTHES CAUGHT FIRE WHEN SHE STOOD NEAR A PROPANE HEATER, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARNING WAS ADEQUATE AND WHETHER FAILURE TO WARN WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Standing to Seek Review of Site Plan Approval Based Upon Interest in Protecting... CPLR 7511 Review of Compulsory Arbitration Under the Education Law