From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Vickery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1990
167 A.D.2d 828 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

November 16, 1990

Appeal from the Yates County Surrogate's Court, DiPasquale, S.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The Surrogate erred in permitting a lay witness to express her opinion concerning the mental competence of the testatrix. It is well established that an ordinary witness may describe the acts of a person whose sanity is in question and state whether those acts impressed her as rational or irrational, but that an ordinary witness, other than a subscribing witness to the will, may not render an opinion whether the testatrix was of sound mind (see, Richardson, Evidence § 364 [m] [Prince 10th ed]). That error does not, however, require reversal.

Evidence was offered that, during execution of the will, the testatrix did not speak, and that it was her son who asked the subscribing witnesses to act as witnesses. Petitioner, the proponent of the instrument, requested the court to instruct the jury that a testatrix need not declare an instrument to be her will or ask persons to act as subscribing witnesses; that a third person acting as the agent or representative of the testatrix may make the declaration and request the witnesses to attest (see, Matter of Eckert, 93 Misc.2d 677, 679-680, affd. 70 A.D.2d 801). In the usual case, the attorney who prepared the will supervises its execution, and that circumstance is sufficient to permit an inference of agency or representation (see, Matter of Hedges, 100 A.D.2d 586; Matter of Eckert, supra). No evidence was presented to establish how the instrument was prepared or that the son was acting as the agent of the testatrix. An attorney was not present during the ceremony, and the fact of agency could not be inferred from the circumstances. The jury's special verdict, finding that testatrix did not declare the instrument to be her will and did not ask the subscribers to act as witnesses, was not contrary to the weight of evidence. Accordingly, the order removing petitioner as temporary executor is affirmed.


Summaries of

Matter of Vickery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1990
167 A.D.2d 828 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Vickery

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Estate of FLORENCE W. VICKERY, Deceased. JOHN P…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1990

Citations

167 A.D.2d 828 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
561 N.Y.S.2d 937

Citing Cases

In re Probate Proceeding, Will of Sook Li

Nor need the testator speak expressly to the witness. While it is essential that the will be published, so as…

In re Estate of Dimiceli

Nevertheless, it is uncontested that he was present and supervised the execution of the will. This is…