From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of MacDonald

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 16, 1976
40 N.Y.2d 995 (N.Y. 1976)

Opinion

Argued November 16, 1976

Decided December 16, 1976

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, EVANS V. BREWSTER, S.

Elmer L. Fingar and Gerald Nolan for appellant.

Stephen Holden, III, for respondent.


MEMORANDUM. Although the hearsay testimony of the attorney-draftsman would, under usual circumstances, be inadmissible (see Matter of Kennedy, 167 N.Y. 163; Matter of Staiger, 243 N.Y. 468, 472) the same might be received in the absence of objection (Matter of Findlay, 253 N.Y. 1, 11). The Surrogate considered this testimony in his finding that the proof offered was insufficient to rebut the presumption of intentional revocation. Since this finding of fact was affirmed by the Appellate Division, it is beyond the scope of our review.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of MacDonald

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 16, 1976
40 N.Y.2d 995 (N.Y. 1976)
Case details for

Matter of MacDonald

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Estate of CLARA R. MacDONALD, Deceased. EDITH W…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 16, 1976

Citations

40 N.Y.2d 995 (N.Y. 1976)
391 N.Y.S.2d 70
359 N.E.2d 665

Citing Cases

Velasquez v. RS JZ Driggs LLC

Although they constitute hearsay (see Rivera v GT Acquisition 1 Corp., 72 A.D.3d 525 [1st Dept. 2010]), the…

Siemucha v. Garrison

Plaintiff did not object to the admission of the portions of the records from the Niagara Falls Memorial…