From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Becker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 1984
104 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

August 20, 1984

Appeal from the Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, S.).


Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The narrow issue presented on this appeal is whether paragraph "Eighth" of the decedent's last will and testament should be declared invalid insofar as it designates the petitioners (her former attorney and his wife) to act as coexecutors under the will, and whether the second codicil thereto, granting the petitioners the further power, inter alia, of removing the corporate coexecutor, should similarly be declared invalid, both on the ground of undue influence. Notably, the acting Surrogate saw and heard each of the 15 or so witnesses who testified at the trial, and since the issues presented are largely factual in nature, we have accorded substantial weight to his appraisal of their relative credibility ( Amend v Hurley, 293 N.Y. 587, 594; Barnet v Cannizzaro, 3 A.D.2d 745, 747).

Thus viewed, and on the basis of an independent examination of the record as well as the applicable principles of law, we find no warrant for disturbing his conclusion that the petitioner draftsman Thomas L. Ryan "manipulated the decedent and exercised undue influence in the drafting and execution of the two instruments in question". Accordingly, we find that the petitioners were properly precluded, inter alia, from serving as coexecutors under the will (see Matter of Weinstock, 40 N.Y.2d 1). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Becker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 1984
104 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Matter of Becker

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Estate of CAROLINE W. BECKER, Also Known as CAROLINE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 20, 1984

Citations

104 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Matter of Lowenstein

There is no legal theory which supports Mr. Sichel's claim for damages. The December 25, 1984 agreement may…

Matter of Klenk

Where the appointment is found to be the result of fraud and overreaching exercised upon the testator, the…