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Question of Fact Existed About Whether Lost or Destroyed Will Had Been Revoked.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  There is a presumption that a will that was last in decedent’s possession but can not be found after death has been revoked.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
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FAMILY COURT’S SUA SPONTE FINDING THERE HAD BEEN A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, I.E., A BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND FATHER, WARRANTING A MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT AND AWARDING SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER (THIRD DEPT).
ABSENT A MOTION BY A PARTY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ACTION BASED UPON DEFECTIVE SERVICE (THIRD DEPT).
NO AGREEMENT TO INCREASE INSURANCE COVERAGE OF HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AFTER RENOVATIONS, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURANCE BROKERS AND THE INSUREDS (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT EASEMENT BY NECESSITY CLAIM AND LOCATION OF EASEMENT APPURTENANT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.
COUNTY COURT DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS AN INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THE PEOPLE HAD LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT AT THE TIME HE PLED GUILTY TO A PRIOR INDICTMENT (CPL 40.40); PETITIONER’S REMEDY IS DIRECT APPEAL, NOT THE INSTANT ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS (THIRD DEPT).
Untimely ​Strict Products Liability Cause of Action Related Back to Timely Negligent Design Cause of Action—Motion to Amend Pleadings to Add Strict Products Liability Cause of Action Against Lessor of Heavy Equipment Should Have Been Granted
Division of Parole’s Mistake Which Resulted in the Incarceration of the Claimant Was Privileged—Claimant’s Action for False Imprisonment Properly Dismissed
CLAIMANT’S TERMINATION FROM HER EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY BASED UPON TWO DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE CONVICTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE HER FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (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