From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Windheim v. Huggard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 6, 1993
192 A.D.2d 337 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

April 6, 1993

Appeal from the Surrogate's Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.).


The proponents of the will met their burden, through the testimony of the subscribing witnesses, of establishing a prima facie case of testamentary capacity (see, Matter of Kumstar, 66 N.Y.2d 691, 692), thus shifting the burden to the objectant to disprove testamentary capacity (see, Matter of Kaplan, 50 A.D.2d 429, 431, affd 41 N.Y.2d 870; Matter of Whalen, 87 A.D.2d 733, 734). Here, the objectant did not offer sufficient affirmative proof of a lack of testamentary capacity. Accordingly, the will was properly admitted to probate.

We have considered the objectant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Windheim v. Huggard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 6, 1993
192 A.D.2d 337 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Windheim v. Huggard

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Estate of MINERVA D. WINDHEIM, Deceased. DANIEL…

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

Date published: Apr 6, 1993

Citations

192 A.D.2d 337 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
596 N.Y.S.2d 678

Citing Cases

Matter of Sommese

At trial the uncontroverted testimony of the two subscribing witnesses (one of whom benefits indirectly under…

In re Estate of Tizer

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ. The proponents of the will met their burden,…