You are here: / / IN THIS WILL CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH THE WILL DID NOT ANTICIPATE...

IN THIS WILL CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH THE WILL DID NOT ANTICIPATE DECEDENT’S HUSBAND WOULD DIE BEFORE HER, THE DECEDENT’S INTENT WAS CLEAR AND WAS PROPERLY ENFORCED BY SURROGATE’S COURT.

In this will construction proceeding, the Third Department determined Surrogate’s Court properly found that the decedent intended to benefit all ten children, including two stepchildren from her husband’s (Warren’s) prior marriage. The will did not anticipate that Warren would die before the decedent. If the laws of intestacy were applied, the two stepchildren would have been excluded. But because decedent’s contrary intent was clear, Surrogate’s Court properly ignored the laws of intestacy:

… [W]hile the residuary clause of the will is silent as to what would happen if decedent outlived Warren, all of her other testamentary dispositions evince the goal of equally dividing her assets among all 10 children, either at the time of her death or Warren’s death. There is nothing in the will to suggest that she intended a contrary result with regard to the residuary estate if Warren died before her, or that she had any interest in excluding petitioner and his sister from that part of her estate. The will implies the contrary and that decedent considered all 10 children as her own, as she named petitioner as one of several trustees in the will and regretted that she could not name all of her “other children” as well. Thus, Surrogate’s Court correctly “g[ave] effect to the expressed general testamentary plan and purpose of the testator” by implying a provision in decedent’s will leaving her residuary estate to all 10 children… . Matter of Warren, 2016 NY Slip Op 06925, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (IN THIS WILL CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH THE WILL DID NOT ANTICIPATE DECEDENT’S HUSBAND WOULD DIE BEFORE HER, THE DECEDENT’S INTENT WAS CLEAR AND WAS PROPERLY ENFORCED BY SURROGATE’S COURT)/WILLS (IN THIS WILL CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH THE WILL DID NOT ANTICIPATE DECEDENT’S HUSBAND WOULD DIE BEFORE HER, THE DECEDENT’S INTENT WAS CLEAR AND WAS PROPERLY ENFORCED BY SURROGATE’S COURT)/CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDING (WILLS, ALTHOUGH THE WILL DID NOT ANTICIPATE DECEDENT’S HUSBAND WOULD DIE BEFORE HER, THE DECEDENT’S INTENT WAS CLEAR AND WAS PROPERLY ENFORCED BY SURROGATE’S COURT)

You might also like
Amendment Allowing the Consideration of Incarceration as a Reason for a Downward Support Modification Is Not Applied Retroactively
THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THIS VISITATION PROCEEDING REQUIRED REMITTAL FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT). ​
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S DETERMINATION THAT LOANS, NOTES AND MORTGAGES WERE PROHIBITED TRANSFERS UNDER THE MEDICAID LAW, TRIGGERING A PENALTY PERIOD BEFORE ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAID NURSING HOME BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER’S SLIP AND FALL DURING A BURGLARY INVESTIGATION NOT AN ACCIDENT.
Insurance Company Could Not Rely On Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Action to Recoup What It Paid Out on a Related Property Damage Claim—Not a Valid Subrogation Vehicle
COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAS THE POWER TO DENY RELICENSING TO DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI WHO HAD TWO SIX POINT SPEEDING TICKETS DURING THE LOOK-BACK PERIOD.
THE WIFE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT (1) THE FAIRNESS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, (2) WHETHER HER ATTORNEY, CHOSEN FOR HER, ENGAGED IN MEANINGFUL NEGOTIATIONS, (3) WHETHER SHE RATIFIED THE AGREEMENT, AND (4) WHETHER SHE WAS ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE (THIRD DEPT).
THE CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THE REDACTED PORTIONS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AND WERE INCULPATORY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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

FIBER OPTIC CABLES ARE NOT TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW... PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY...