You are here: / / Invocation of Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination by Both...

Invocation of Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination by Both Attesting Witnesses Did Not Require Dismissal of Petition to Admit Will to Probate

The Third Department determined that Surrogate’s Court properly denied the motion to dismiss the petition.  Dismissal was sought because both attesting witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination:

To establish that the will was duly executed, petitioner was required to produce the attesting witnesses for examination unless the law permitted the court to dispense with their testimony (see SCPA 1404 [1]).  The applicable statutes do not address the invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination by attesting witnesses, but this Court has found that such an invocation is akin to a failure to recall the events surrounding a will’s execution and, thus, that a will may be admitted to probate pursuant to SCPA 1405 (3) when one witness invokes the privilege, based on the testimony of the other witness or witnesses and sufficient other proof … .

Respondents contend that, as both attesting witnesses invoked the privilege here, the requirement in SCPA 1405 (3) for the testimony of “at least [one] other attesting witness” was not satisfied.   However, the Court of Appeals has held that SCPA 1405 (3) was not intended to “revolutionize[] prior practice” by requiring at least one attesting witness to testify in favor of a will … .  Instead, in holding that a will may be admitted to probate under SCPA 1405 (3) when no attesting witness recalls its execution, the Court found that – consistent with prior law – the statute requires attesting witnesses to be “examined, and all relevant testimony elicited” … but does not impose requirements upon the substance of their testimony.  * * * The issue thus distills to whether there was sufficient other evidence to establish a prima facie case of due execution, and we find that there was. Matter of Estate of Buchting…, 516257, 3rd Dept 11-21-13

 

You might also like
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN NEW YORK, COUNSEL WAS SANCTIONED IN THE AMOUNT OF $5000 FOR SUBMITTING AI-GENERATED BRIEFS CITING 23 “FAKE” DECISIONS; IN ADDITION, COUNSEL AND HIS CLIENT WERE EACH SANCTIONED IN THE AMOUNT OF $2500 FOR FILING A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL (THIRD DEPT). ​
TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S SUPERVISED VISITATION IS A “DRASTIC REMEDY” WHICH MUST BE SUPPORTED BY “SUBSTANTIAL PROOF” CONTINUED VISITATION “WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE CHILD;” THE PROOF HERE DID NOT MEET THOSE CRITERIA (THIRD DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFFS HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE TRUST SET UP BY DECEDENT; PLAINITIFFS DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BECAUSE IT WAS ALLEGED THE DECEDENT (A THIRD PARTY), NOT THE PLAINTIFFS, RELIED ON THE ALLEGEDLY FALSE STATEMENT; THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS EXERCISED UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER THE DECEDENT WHICH AFFECTED THE DECEDENT’S ESTATE-RELATED DECISIONS (THIRD DEPT).
​THE EMPLOYEE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (NONSOLICITATION AGREEMENTS) WERE PROPERLY ENFORCED; NINE OF DEFENDANT INSURANCE COMPANY’S CUSTOMERS FOLLOWED PLAINITFFS AFTER THEIR TERMIINATION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT). ​
The County Was Negligent Per Se Due to Its Violation of the Provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law Requiring Loads in Open Trucks be Covered—Plaintiff Was Struck by Debris Which Came Off an Uncovered Load—The Governmental Immunity Conferred by the Executive Law During a Response to an Emergency (the Truck Was Carrying Debris from the Clean-Up After Hurricane Irene) Did Not Extend to this Situation (Purpose and Scope of the Government’s “Emergency” Immunity Under the Executive Law Explained)
THE 2008 FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS SERVED ON A DECEASED DEFENDANT AND WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY WHICH DID NOT TRIGGER THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION, THEREFORE, IS NOT TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).
No Constitutional Issue Raised by Claim that County Is Paying Too High a “Mobility Tax” Because It Does Not Receive as Much Transit Service as Other Counties Paying the Same Amount
IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING, MOTHER’S PROOF OF THE CHILD’S INJURIES IN FATHER’S CARE AND HER IMPROVED PARENTING SKILLS AND LIVING CONDITIONS WAS SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND FATHER’S MOTION TO DISMISS; THE JUDGE APPEARS TO HAVE PREJUDGED THE CASE; MATTER REMITTED TO BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT JUDGE (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

Property Owned by Religious Group Entitled to Real Property Tax Exemption Department of Homeless Services’ New Eligibility Procedure Triggered the Notice...