You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant had standing to contest the search which turned up the weapon defendant was charged with possessing:

“[A] defendant seeking to suppress evidence, on the basis that it was obtained by means of an illegal search, must allege standing to challenge the search and, if the allegation is disputed, must establish standing” … . To establish standing, the defendant must demonstrate that he or she has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched … . A defendant has no expectation of privacy in a home where he or she is merely a casual visitor with tenuous ties to it… . In such cases, the defendant does not have standing to challenge the legality of the search of the home… .

According to the unrefuted testimony at the suppression hearing of defendant’s brother and sister-in-law, the lessors of the home, defendant resided there until two months prior to the incident. Nevertheless, defendant maintained the address associated with the home as his permanent mailing address, and, although he removed much of his property, he continued to keep clothes there. He returned frequently to care for his nieces and nephews, and he was entrusted with the home when his brother and sister-in-law were away. Defendant was at the home often and slept there overnight between 5 and 12 times per month. Thus, we conclude that defendant’s “connection with the premises was substantially greater than that of a casual visitor, and . . . that . . . defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home” … .

Inasmuch as “our review is limited to the issues determined by the court”… , and the court failed to determine whether one of the lessors of the home consented to the search, we continue to hold the case and reserve decision, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine that issue. People v Sweat, 2018 NY Slip Op 01786, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))/STANDING (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT WAS THE SHOOTER IN THIS HOME INVASION CASE, FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE MURDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s conviction from first degree to second degree murder, over a two-justice dissent, determined there was legally insufficient evidence that the defendant shot the victim in this home invasion case:

To support a conviction of murder in the first degree under Penal Law § 125.27 (1) (a) (vii), the People were required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally caused the victim’s death during the commission of a crime enumerated in the statute, such as a robbery or burglary in the first degree. A conviction under subparagraph (vii) cannot be based on accomplice liability under section 20.00, “unless the defendant’s criminal liability . . . is based upon the defendant having commanded another person to cause the death of the victim or intended victim” … . Here, the jury was never presented with the command theory of liability, but was instead expressly instructed in response to a jury note that, to convict defendant of murder in the first degree, it would have to determine that defendant “pulled the trigger himself.”

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that no rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant shot the victim… . Here, the evidence established that defendant’s girlfriend was also inside the victim’s house with defendant at the time when the victim is believed to have been shot, but the People presented no evidence whatsoever with respect to the series of events inside the home or with respect to who ultimately “pulled the trigger” against the victim. People v Henry, 2018 NY Slip Op 01833, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

CRIMINAL LAW (LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT WAS THE SHOOTER IN THIS HOME INVASION CASE, FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE MURDER (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT WAS THE SHOOTER IN THIS HOME INVASION CASE, FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION REDUCED TO SECOND DEGREE MURDER (FOURTH DEPT))

,

JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL AFTER LEARNING DEFENDANT HAD FILED A GRIEVANCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined County Court should have inquired into defendant’s request for new counsel after learning defendant had filed a grievance against his attorney:

Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request to substitute his second assigned attorney and, at a minimum, should have conducted a more detailed inquiry with respect to his complaints about counsel’s performance.

” [A]lthough there is no rule requiring that a defendant who has filed a grievance against his attorney be assigned new counsel, [a] court [is] required to make an inquiry to determine whether defense counsel [can] continue to represent defendant in light of the grievance’ ” … . Here, we agree with defendant that the court should have “made at least some minimal inquiry in light of defense counsel’s statement that the defendant had filed a grievance against him,” in order to determine whether defense counsel was properly able to continue to represent defendant … . We thus conclude that the court thereby violated defendant’s right to counsel and that defendant is entitled to a new trial … , prior to which he should be given the opportunity to retain counsel or be assigned new counsel if appropriate. People v Hardy, 2018 NY Slip Op 01837, Fourth Dept 3-16-16

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL AFTER LEARNING DEFENDANT HAD FILED A GRIEVANCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL AFTER LEARNING DEFENDANT HAD FILED A GRIEVANCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT))

INDICTMENT DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TIME PERIODS IN TWO COUNTS, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THOSE TWO COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal on two counts of the indictment should have been granted because the indictment did not notify defendant of the time periods of the alleged offenses:

… County Court erred in denying his motion for a trial order of dismissal with respect to counts one and two of the indictment, both charging him with use of a child in a sexual performance, on the ground that the indictment failed to provide defendant with sufficient notice of the time periods during which he allegedly committed those acts … . People v Carrigan, 2018 NY Slip Op 01733, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

CRIMINAL LAW (NOTICE, INDICTMENT DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TIME PERIODS IN TWO COUNTS, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THOSE TWO COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (NOTICE, INDICTMENT DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TIME PERIODS IN TWO COUNTS, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THOSE TWO COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/NOTICE (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENT DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TIME PERIODS IN TWO COUNTS, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THOSE TWO COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TIME PERIODS (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENTS, NOTICE, INDICTMENT DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TIME PERIODS IN TWO COUNTS, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THOSE TWO COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE SENTENCE OF PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s sentence was unduly harsh and severe. The defendant, a persistent violent felony offender, was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon and sentenced to 25 years to life:

The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. * * *

… [T]he sentence imposed, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 25 years to life as a persistent violent felony offender, is unduly harsh and severe. Defendant did not fire or even directly possess the weapon, and there is no evidence that he knew that his codefendant intended to use it unlawfully. Although defendant has multiple prior felony convictions, several of which are for weapon offenses, he has no history of violence on his record, and his conduct in this case does not in our view warrant the maximum sentence permitted by law. We therefore modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the sentence to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 16 years to life … . People v Ray, 2018 NY Slip Op 01796, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

CRIMINAL LAW (UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE SENTENCE OF PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (CRIMINAL LAW, UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE SENTENCE OF PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))/HARSH AND SEVERE SENTENCE  (UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE SENTENCE OF PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (CRIMINAL LAW, UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE SENTENCE OF PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SANDOVAL CONFERENCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because defendant was not included in the Sandoval conference (re: whether defendant could be cross-examined about prior convictions):

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree … . As the People correctly concede, reversal is required. The record establishes that defendant was excluded from Supreme Court’s Sandoval conference …  and, because “[t]he court’s Sandoval ruling in this case was not wholly favorable to defendant, . . . it cannot be said that defendant’s presence at the hearing would have been superfluous’ ” … . People v Cooper, 2018 NY Slip Op 01823, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SANDOVAL CONFERENCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT))/SANDOVAL CONFERENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SANDOVAL CONFERENCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT))/PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT (CRIMINAL LAW, PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AT MATERIAL STAGES, DEFENDANT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SANDOVAL CONFERENCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the duty to keep a state park safe is a proprietary function, not a governmental function. The governmental immunity doctrine does not apply. Therefore the claimant’s motion for summary judgment based upon his being bitten by a rabid fox in a park was properly granted:

“The relevant inquiry in determining whether a governmental agency is acting within a governmental or proprietary capacity is to examine . . . the specific act or omission out of which the injury is claimed to have arisen and the capacity in which that act or failure to act occurred’ ” … .

Here, claimant’s injuries allegedly resulted from defendant’s negligent failure to take adequate steps to protect park patrons from reasonably foreseeable danger, despite having actual notice of a potentially rabid animal on the park premises hours before the incident. “It is well settled that regardless of whether or not it is a source of income the operation of a public park by a municipality is a quasi-private or corporate and not a governmental function”… . Further, “a municipality is under a duty to maintain its park . . . facilities in a reasonably safe condition” … . That “duty goes beyond the mere maintenance of the physical condition of the park . . . and, although strict or immediate supervision need not be provided, the municipality may be obliged to furnish an adequate degree of general supervision which may require the regulation or prevention of such activities [or other conditions] as endanger others utilizing the park” … . Thus, we conclude that the court properly determined that claimants’ allegations that defendant failed “to minimize the risk posed with a relevant warning and effective notification to the [p]ark [p]olice” implicated defendant’s proprietary, not governmental, duties. Agness v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 01747, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

COURT OF CLAIMS (PARK SAFETY, IMMUNITY, ANIMAL LAW, PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/IMMUNITY (PARK SAFETY, ANIMAL LAW, PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW  (PARK SAFETY, ANIMAL LAW, PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION  (PARK SAFETY, IMMUNITY, ANIMAL LAW, PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/PARKS (COURT OF CLAIMS, PARK SAFETY, IMMUNITY, ANIMAL LAW, PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RABID ANIMALS (PARK SAFETY, IMMUNITY, ANIMAL LAW, PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

THE STIPULATED SUM CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DID NOT ALLOW THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER’S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, in a complex decision covering many issues not summarized here, determined that the language of the contracts and agreements re: the construction of new schools precluded the City of Buffalo Joint Schools Construction Board (Board) from learning the program manager’s (LPC’s) construction and administrative costs. The Board entered construction agreements with LPC as an agent of the City of Buffalo School District (District):

In 2014 and 2015, after operating under the [relevant contracts and agreements] for over 12 years, the Board and the District refused to process or pay the last four payment requisitions until LPC provided them with documentation concerning LPC’s actual construction and administrative costs, information that LPC contended was confidential, proprietary and not subject to disclosure under the [relevant contracts and agreements]. * * *

[The relevant agreements provide] the District with audit and examination rights to any and all records related to the ” construction contingency’ ” portion of the stipulated sum. Nevertheless, that section further provides that, “[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the foregoing audit and examination rights do no[t] apply to any records maintained by [LPC] (or . . . on behalf of [LPC]) with respect to any Project Administration Costs or Construction Costs other than records directly related to the expenditure of the construction contingency.’ ” …

The contract is a stipulated-sum construction contract. In such contracts, “[t]he owner is obligated to pay the contractor the fixed amount no matter what it costs to finish the work” and, generally, “the owner is not entitled to review the costs that the contractor incurs during the project” … . Considering the general purpose of the contract and the fact that the [related agreements] specifically provide that the audit rights for construction contingency funds did not apply to records concerning LPC’s “Project Administration Costs or Construction Costs” unrelated to the construction contingency, we conclude that the only reasonable way to interpret [the applicable contract] is to determine that it applies to the District’s actual costs only. City of Buffalo City Sch. Dist. v LPCiminelli, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01832, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

CONTRACT LAW (THE STIPULATED SUM CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DID NOT ALLOW THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER’S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (FOURTH DEPT))/CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (THE STIPULATED SUM CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DID NOT ALLOW THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER’S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (FOURTH DEPT))/STIPULATED SUM CONTRACTS (THE STIPULATED SUM CONTRACT FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION DID NOT ALLOW THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER’S ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (FOURTH DEPT))

ATTEMPT TO FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WAS UNTIMELY AND THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED ON THE RELATION-BACK AND SEVERAL OTHER SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURAL ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent which addresses many substantive procedural issues not summarized here, determined plaintiff’s attempt to file and serve an amended complaint was untimely and the relation-back doctrine did not apply:

Pursuant to CPLR 203 (f), “[a] claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading.” It is well established that “the linchpin’ of the relation back doctrine [is] notice to the defendant within the applicable limitations period”… . Here, it is undisputed that the original complaint was never served on defendants. The original complaint thus did not give defendants notice of the transactions or occurrences to be proved pursuant to the amended complaint. The claims in the amended complaint, therefore, are measured for timeliness by service (or filing in this case) of the amended complaint … . “Because no one was served until [after the statute of limitations expired], there is no basis to conclude that defendant[s] had any idea that a lawsuit was pending, much less that [they] would be . . . named [as] defendants,” within the applicable limitations period … . Vanyo v Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01827, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ATTEMPT TO FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WAS UNTIMELY AND THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED ON THE RELATION-BACK AND SEVERAL OTHER SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURAL ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT))/RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (ATTEMPT TO FILE AND SERVE AN AMENDED SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WAS UNTIMELY AND THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED ON THE RELATION-BACK AND SEVERAL OTHER SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURAL ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT))

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))

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