You are here: / / WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT...

WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Surrogate’s Court properly determined the presumption the will had been revoked had not been rebutted. Petitioner had attempted to probate a photocopy of the will which could not be found upon the death of the testator:

“A lost or destroyed will may be admitted to probate only if . . . [i]t is established that the will has not been revoked” (SCPA 1407 [1]).

” When a will previously executed cannot be found after the death of the testator, there is a strong presumption that it was revoked by destruction by the testator’ ” … . That “strong presumption of revocation by the testator . . . stands in the place of positive proof when a will previously executed cannot be found after a testator’s death”… . Respondent was thus entitled to rely on the presumption to meet his burden on the motion … . In addition, petitioner’s own submissions established that decedent asked to retain the original will in her possession, and the attorney who drafted the will had the original delivered to decedent shortly after its execution … .

In opposition to the motion, petitioner failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a question of fact whether the presumption of revocation may be overcome … . The presumption is unaffected by evidence that decedent’s attorney retained a copy of the will at his office and that decedent never advised him that she intended to revoke the will … . Nor may the presumption be overcome with hearsay accounts of decedent’s statements concerning her testamentary intentions … . Finally, while the presumption of revocation may be overcome with circumstantial evidence … , “[p]etitioner[] cannot succeed on mere speculation and suspicion” … . Rather, petitioner must present “facts and circumstances which show that the will was fraudulently destroyed during the testator’s lifetime” … . Matter of Scollan, 2018 NY Slip Op 03287, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​TRUSTS AND ESTATES (WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/WILLS (REVOKED, WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/REVOCATION, PRESUMPTION OF (WILLS, WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))/LOST WILLS (WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
18% REDUCTION IN INCOME SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT RECALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT.
Cheerleader Assumed the Risk of Practicing with an Injured Teammate
DEFENDANT PROPERLY ASSESSED 80 POINTS FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN THIS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK LEVEL PROCEEDING, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, DETERMINATION REVERSED HOWEVER BECAUSE COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONSIDER DOWNWARD DEPARTURE REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CATEGORICALLY DENIED PURSUANT TO THE PERSONAL PRIVACY EXEMPTION; RATHER THE RECORDS MUST BE REVIEWED AND ANY DENIALS OR REDACTIONS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).
ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT DRIVER DROVE UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE PAVED PATH WHERE PLAINTIFFS HAD BEEN WALKING THEIR DOGS, MAINTENANCE OF A PARK IS A PROPRIETARY NOT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELIED SOLELY ON GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO CO-OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS LEAD PAINT CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).
SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SILICA INHALATION FAILURE TO WARN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE, DESPITE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGER ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE... BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE NYC COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS’...