New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog
Two cases are before the court for resolution.
A New York Probate Lawyer said in the first case, the contestants in a will contest or probate proceeding of the Estate of A appeal from the order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, entered on 9 October 1959 which denied their motion for the entry of an order denying probate to an alleged codicil in accordance with the court’s decision of 13 August 1957 or in the alternative, for summary judgment denying probate to said alleged codicil according to Rules of Civil Practice, rules 113, 114 and directed that the proceeding be placed on the calendar for a day certain.
The court affirms the order with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, payable out of the estate.
In the second case, the decedent died on 11 February 1958 and a proceeding followed thereafter to establish his lost will pursuant to the provisions of Section 143, Surrogate’s Court Act.
A New York Wills Lawyer said the Court is satisfied on the testimony of the subscribing witnesses that on 4 February 1958, decedent duly executed a will in accordance with the provisions of Section 21, Decedent Estate Law; that at the time of execution he was fully competent to execute a will and under no restraint.
There was no copy of the will produced but the testimony of the subscribing witnesses satisfactorily established its contents. A New York Queens Lawyer said the subscribing witnesses testified that the will was on a printed form folded at the top to make four pages. They also enumerated the testamentary dispositions and the nomination of the executrix and alternate executor were typed on the first page, the second or reverse side of the first page was blank and on the third page was the testimonium clause followed by the signature of the decedent. There was an attestation clause after decedent’s signature below which the subscribing witnesses had placed their signatures and addresses. They further testified that by the will decedent directed payment of his debts and gave the rest of his property and possessions to B. And, however, if she did not survive him, decedent left all his property to C and D, son and daughter of said B. The will nominated B as executrix; in the event of her death, C and was to serve as executor and decedent directed that neither of them should be required to file a bond.
There was a further provision in the will in the nature of a request that a fence be erected around or on the side of the property wherein B then resided.
A Long Island Probate Lawyer said the witness, E, testified that on the day before decedent’s funeral she was at the home of B, who showed her a bundle of papers which she said were all of the decedent’s personal papers ‘and everything’. Among the papers was the instrument which the witness identified as the will which decedent had signed and to which she and F had acted as witnesses. She recognized decedent’s signature thereon, her own signature and that of the other subscribing witnesses. Both witnesses testified that never before had they acted as witnesses to a will.
There was further testimony by the son and daughter of B that they had seen the will at their mother’s home after decedent’s death and that thereafter they were unable to find it after search by them and their mother.
The Court finds that the will was in existence at the time of decedent’s death, that it was thereafter lost and that its provisions have been clearly and distinctly proven by two credible witnesses who were the subscribing witnesses. The objections filed by decedent’s brother are dismissed and the will be admitted to probate. Settle decree on notice incorporating the provisions of the will as herein set forth.
In supplementing the decision of the Court, dated 1 February 1960, the court notes that the testimony further established that the decedent’s will contained a statement that he was leaving nothing to his relatives in Norway because he had not seen them in forty years and did not know whether they were living or dead. The court orders that the decree be incorporated in the statement as part of decedent’s will as probated.
Have you just lost a loved one? Is his parting troubled with testamentary and probate issues like the case mentioned above? Kings County Probate Attorneys, Kings County Estate Attorneys and Stephen Bilkis & Associates will gladly assist you in your time of bereavement and woes involving these matters. Call our toll free numbers or visit our firm. We make sure that your dearly beloved and your family will be at peace.