New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog

Families often find themselves entangled in disputes over wills, particularly when claims of lacking testamentary capacity and undue influence arise. Such disagreements frequently arise due to differing interpretations of the deceased’s intentions or changes in familial dynamics. Courts, cognizant of the gravity of these allegations, meticulously assess each claim. To substantiate assertions of testamentary incapacity or undue influence, the court demands compelling evidence. The case of Burrows v. Burrows is an example of a situation where were such claims.

Background Facts

The case involved the contested estate of a deceased individual, referred to as the “decedent.” Marcia Burrows, as guardian of Ava Burrows and Audrey Burrows (the children), objected to the probate of the decedent’s will and sought to set aside the accompanying revocable trust, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The Surrogate’s Court granted the petitioners’ motion for summary judgment, admitting the will to probate. The court considered witness testimonies, including the estate attorney and accountant, establishing the decedent’s lucidity during the will’s execution. It found the respondent’s claims lacked specificity and were speculative, leading to the dismissal of objections related to testamentary capacity and undue influence. Marcia Burrows appealed.

In New York, being of “sound mind” to execute a will means that the testator must possess testamentary capacity. See EPTL § 3-1.1. This entails understanding the nature and consequences of making a will, knowing the extent of one’s property, and recognizing the natural beneficiaries. While a presumption of having a sound mind exists, a testator’s mental capacity can be challenged as it was in In Matter of the Estate of Scher, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51819 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2008). It’s important to note that common conditions associated with aging or mental health issues may not automatically invalidate a will, and the burden of proof rests on the party contesting testamentary capacity.

The probate proceeding involving the estate of Harold Scher, who passed away on February 11, 2006, has unfolded with a myriad of legal complexities and familial tensions. The surviving spouse, Leah Scher  objects to probate, and the decedent’s sons from a previous marriage, Mark Scher and David Scher and the proponents of he will. Objectant seeks to challenge the probate of Harold Scher’s will dated July 12, 2005, citing reasons such as lack of due execution, lack of testamentary capacity, fraud, and undue influence. In response, Proponents have filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, aiming to dismiss Objectant’s objections and secure the probate of the contested will.

Background Facts

In the intricate landscape of estate administration, the case of Douglas A. Bender’s intestate demise brings to light the complexities surrounding wrongful death claims and the allocation of settlement proceeds. This blog delves into the details of the case, exploring the legal intricacies, orders of the court, and the pivotal role of attorneys in navigating this challenging terrain.

Background Facts

In 2011, Douglas A. Bender passed away without leaving a will, leaving his spouse, Bonnie Bender, and four children as surviving family members. To manage the affairs of the estate, Limited Letters of Administration were granted to Bonnie on June 25, 2012. The only asset of the estate was a wrongful death claim initiated by Douglas and Bonnie due to asbestos exposure.

Contested probate proceedings often unravel complex familial dynamics and legal intricacies, and the case at hand is no exception. In this case that was heard by the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, the issue of fraud and undue influence in the execution of Maria Capuano’s will was at issue.

Undue influence in New York refers to a situation where an individual exerts improper and overwhelming pressure on a  testator, to the extent that it compromises the testator’s free will and independent decision-making regarding the distribution of their assets in a will. In probate cases, a claim of undue influence may arise when there are allegations that a person in a position of trust and confidence with the testator, such as a family member or caregiver, manipulated or coerced the testator into making specific provisions in their will that they may not have otherwise chosen.

To establish undue influence in New York, it must be demonstrated that the influence exerted amounted to a form of moral coercion, restraining the testator’s independent action and destroying their free agency. This could involve importunity that the testator could not resist, compelling them to make decisions against their true desires. The burden of proof typically rests on the party challenging the will, and they must provide clear and convincing evidence of the undue influence exercised during the testamentary process

The intricacies of wrongful death settlements often unravel in unforeseen ways, as evidenced by Matter of Buscemi, 32 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006), a case that developed following the death Lorraine C. Buscemi’s tragic demise.

A wrongful death compromise arises when an individual’s demise results from another party’s wrongful act. In such cases, the court not only determines the amount awarded to the plaintiff but also grapples with the allocation of funds between wrongful death and personal injury claims. Damages linked to wrongful death exclusively benefit the decedent’s distributees, addressing their pecuniary losses. Conversely, damages for personal injury and pain and suffering are typically allocated through the estate, subject to the decedent’s will or intestate succession laws. This allocation intricacy necessitates a careful examination of the unique circumstances surrounding the case to ensure just and equitable distribution.

Background Facts

Undue influence in the context of probate refers to the exertion of improper pressure or coercion that significantly impacts an individual’s free will in executing a will or trust. It involves manipulating the testator to make provisions that they may not have otherwise made, undermining their independent decision-making. The legal standard requires a showing that the influencer’s actions amounted to moral coercion, restraining the testator’s autonomy and compelling them to act against their true intentions.

In In re DiDomenico 101 A.D.3d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012), the Surrogate’s Court in Westchester County faced an appeal from objectants challenging the admission of the decedent’s will to probate. The case revolved around allegations of undue influence in the execution of the will, with objectants contending that the petitioner, Maria Maiorano, exerted improper influence over the decedent, Frank DiDomenico.

Background Facts

A contested will refers to a legal situation where disagreements arise among heirs or beneficiaries regarding the validity or terms of a deceased person’s will. Such disputes often involve challenges to the will’s authenticity, claims of undue influence, coercion, or disputes over the rightful distribution of assets. When individuals contest a will, they typically bring their objections before a court, seeking resolution and clarification on matters such as inheritance rights. The legal process involves examining evidence, witness testimonies, and relevant documents to determine the validity of the contested will and ensure a fair distribution of the deceased person’s estate.

Matter of Gadziala, 2017 NY Slip Op 50123(U) revolves around the contested probate of Barney M. Gadziala, Jr.’s will. Five siblings survive him, with Michael and John nominated as co-executors. Mary Ann Gadziala, one of the siblings, raises objections, alleging undue influence in the will’s drafting and challenging Michael and John’s qualifications as fiduciaries.

Background Facts