You are here: / / Petitioner Sufficiently Alleged She Is a Nonmarital Child of the Decedent—Probate...

Petitioner Sufficiently Alleged She Is a Nonmarital Child of the Decedent—Probate Decree Properly Vacated

The Second Department determined Surrogate’s Court properly vacated a probate decree based upon petitioner’s assertion she is a nonmarital child of the decedent:

Here, the petitioner … sufficiently alleged that the decedent … “openly and notoriously acknowledged [her] as his own [child]” and, thus, she may be entitled to inherit from him (EPTL 4-1.2[a][2][C][ii]…). Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied the executor’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition.

” Because vacatur disrupts the orderly process of administration and creates a continual aura of uncertainty and nonfinality, a probate decree will be vacated only in extraordinary circumstances'” … . “However, it is equally true that the Court should also be slow to say that an injustice may not be corrected'” … . “A petitioner seeking to vacate a probate decree must establish with some degree of probability that his claim is well founded, and that, if afforded an opportunity, he will be able to substantiate it'” … . An application to vacate a probate decree is committed to the discretion of the court … . Here, the petitioner showed with some degree of probability that she is a nonmarital child of the decedent and that, if afforded an opportunity, she will be able to substantiate her claim. Matter of Saginario, 2014 NY Slip Op 05192, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

You might also like
OFFICIALS OF A NATIVE AMERICAN NATION CAN BE SUED IN NEW YORK STATE COURTS FOR OFF-RESERVATION ACTIONS (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Discovery from Non-Party Explained/Criteria for Discovery of Trade Secrets Explained
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CORPORATE DEFENDANT ALLEGED TO BE “UNITED IN INTEREST” WITH A NAMED CORPORATE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD PASSED, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Demonstrated It Did Not Have Constructive Notice of Condition Which Caused the Fall—Law of Constructive Notice Explained Re: Recurring Conditions/Latent Defects
HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY THE ONLY WITNESS TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT AS A PERPETRATOR INDICATED THE WITNESS WAS NOT IN FACT ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY OF THE PERPETRATORS; THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE THEY WENT TO A CORE ISSUE IN THE CASE IMPLICATING THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WILLFUL NEGLECT BY PLAINTIFF BANK OR ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST RESULTED IN THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Analytical Criteria Re: the Validity of a Stipulation Explained
BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT CAUSE DEFENDANT TO LOSE THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LIABILITY UNDER THE LABOR LAW.

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

Off-Duty Corrections Officer Was Not Acting Within the Scope of His Employment... Whether Lost Evidence Was Relevant to Plaintiff’s Case Presented a Jury...