You are here: / / BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ORIGINAL WILL, NOT MULTIPLE ORIGINALS, THE INABILITY...

BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ORIGINAL WILL, NOT MULTIPLE ORIGINALS, THE INABILITY TO FIND A WILL UPON DECEDENT’S DEATH DID NOT GIVE RISE TO THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION BY THE DECEDENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department affirmed Surrogate’s Court’s finding that there was only one original will, a finding made upon remittal from the Court of Appeals. Because no will was found upon decedent’s death, and because, in the initial Surrogate’s Court proceeding, there was conflicting evidence about whether there was one will, with three copies, or four original wills, the presumption of revocation by the decedent had not been rebutted (the decedent could have possessed an original will). In the post-remittal proceeding, Surrogate’s Court determined petitioner, the sole beneficiary of the will, had proven there was only one will, not multiple original wills. Because, upon remittal, Surrogate’s Court found there was only one original will, the presumption of revocation by the decedent did not arise (because the decedent could not have possessed an original). The wills were drawn for decedent and her ex-husband. Petitioner, the ex-husband’s father, was made alternate beneficiary. When decedent and her ex-husband were divorced, the will as it related to the ex-husband was revoked by operation of law, triggering the petitioner’s alternate beneficiary status. The objectants are decedent’s parents and brothers:

​

Contrary to objectants’ contention, it cannot be said that the Surrogate erred in crediting the ex-husband’s testimony that he and decedent each signed one original will, one original power of attorney, and one original health care proxy, and that the attorney’s office made three photocopies of each of those estate planning documents. Despite the uncertainty with respect to the ex-husband’s testimony at the initial hearing, his testimony at the hearing upon remittal unequivocally clarified that there was only one original of each of six estate planning documents, i.e., his will, power of attorney, and health care proxy, and decedent’s will, power of attorney, and health care proxy. We conclude that the other instances of inconsistent testimony alleged by objectants have no bearing on the issue whether decedent executed only one original will and were otherwise adequately clarified by the ex-husband. Matter of Lewis, 2018 NY Slip Op 00941, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ORIGINAL WILL, NOT MULTIPLE ORIGINALS, THE INABILITY TO FIND A WILL UPON DECEDENT’S DEATH DID NOT GIVE RISE TO THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION BY THE DECEDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/WILLS (PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ORIGINAL WILL, NOT MULTIPLE ORIGINALS, THE INABILITY TO FIND A WILL UPON DECEDENT’S DEATH DID NOT GIVE RISE TO THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION BY THE DECEDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/REVOCATION, PRESUMPTION OF (WILLS, BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ORIGINAL WILL, NOT MULTIPLE ORIGINALS, THE INABILITY TO FIND A WILL UPON DECEDENT’S DEATH DID NOT GIVE RISE TO THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION BY THE DECEDENT (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
TRESPASS BY PERMANENT PHYSICAL ENCROACHMENT (PLUMBING PIPES) IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ANALYSIS AS TRESPASS BY THE ARTIFICIAL DIVERSION OF WATER; TRESPASS BY PERMANENT PHYSICAL ENCROACHMENT IS A CONTINUING TRESPASS UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME PERIOD FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION OR AN EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED, EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUES NEWLY DISCOVERED THIRD-PARTY ADMISSIONS REQUIRE A NEW TRIAL.
FRAUD WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PLED, THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT APPLY TO THE FRAUD ALLEGATIONS, THE JUDICIARY LAW 487 CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PLED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A TOWN POLICE OFFICER ARE CONTROLLED BY THE TOWN LAW AND THE TOWN POLICE MANUAL, NOT THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A DEFECTIVE RAILING ON A SECOND-STORY BALCONY); HOWEVER, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A LETTER FROM THE VILLAGE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SHOULD HAVE TRIGGERED AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).
Sheriff’s (Lack of) Liability Under Respondeat Superior, Elements of Malicious Prosection, Abuse of Process, False Imprisonment and Libel Per Se Explained
ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) APPROVED THE GAS PIPELINE, THE STATE DID NOT ISSUE A WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION (WQC) FOR THE PROJECT, THEREFORE THE PIPELINE COMPANY CAN NOT SEEK EASEMENTS OVER PRIVATE LAND PURSUANT TO THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW (EDPL) TO INSTALL THE PIPELINE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RAISED GROUNDS TO INVALIDATE A RELEASE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE BASED ON FRAUD (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER PROPERLY GRANTED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY... NO SPECIAL RULES APPLY TO DISCOVERY OF FACEBOOK POSTS IN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION,...