You are here: / / Question of Fact Existed About Whether Lost or Destroyed Will Had Been...

Question of Fact Existed About Whether Lost or Destroyed Will Had Been Revoked.

A question of fact precluded summary judgment denying probate where there was evidence the decedent did not intend to revoke a will that could not be found after her death.  There is a presumption that a will that was last in decedent’s possession but can not be found after death has been revoked.  But in this case there was evidence that the decedent was, close in time to her death, taking steps to dispose of her property in accordance with her will, which expressly disinherited one of her four children.  Matter of DiSiena, et al, 515209, Third Dept. 2-28-13

 

You might also like
Conditioning Plea Offer Upon Withdrawal of a Constitutional Speedy Trial Motion Is an Inherently Coercive Mode of Proceedings Error
PETITIONER, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, COMMITTED NEGLECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW WHEN SHE USED THE TERM ‘RETARDED’ IN A CONVERSATION OVERHEARD BY SERVICE RECIPIENTS (THIRD DEPT).
Involuntary Retention Appropriate—Respondent Suffered from Developmental Disability Which Originated Before the Age of 22
THE JUDGE DID NOT INCLUDE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT ORDER; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS; ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE EXECUTIVE LAW WHICH CREATED THE NYS COMMISSION ON ETHICS AND LOBBYING IN GOVERNMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE LAW CREATED AN AGENCY WITH EXECUTIVE POWERS WHICH USURPED THE GOVERNOR’S POWER TO ENSURE FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF ETHICS LAWS (THIRD DEPT) ​
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE INSTRUCTED THE GRAND JURY ON THE AGENCY DEFENSE IN THIS CRIMINAL SALE OF MARIJUANA CASE, INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED.
Precise Dates of Abuse Need Not Be Proven in a Family Court Act Article 10 Proceeding/Exclusion of Respondent from Proceedings During Child’s Testimony Was Proper
CLAIMANT, A PER DIEM SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, WAS GIVEN REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BETWEEN THE ACADEMIC TERMS (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

Standing to Seek Review of Site Plan Approval Based Upon Interest in Protecting... CPLR 7511 Review of Compulsory Arbitration Under the Education Law