![]() 178, 179, 11 N.Y.S.2d 975, 977, in this language: ‘The distinction between the Mullin rule and that applied in Matter of Martin’s Estate is that in the former the contestant is required to state ‘the specific actor acts or course of conduct alleged to have constituted and effected such undue influence’ and ‘the particular false statements, suppressions of fact, misrepresentations, or other fraudulent acts alleged to have been practiced upon the decedent’ which are claimed to have amounted to the asserted fraud. ![]() 122.Ī Queens Probate Lawyer said that no proper decision can be arrived at without noting the difference between the two rules promulgated in the two cases above cited and so well stated by Surrogate Wingate in Matter of Van Riper’s Will, 171 Misc. 519, while the contestant would limit the bill to ‘general’ statements in accordance with Matter of Martin’s Estate, 151 Misc. The real controversy here revolves around the extent to which such particulars ought to be furnished.Įxamination of the proponent’s demand, and of the contestant’s moving papers, and a full consideration of the arguments and authorities cited by their counsel, demonstrate that the proponent seeks ‘specific’ particularization beyond that granted in Matter of Mullin’s Estate, 143 Misc. It is too well settled to require citation of authority, that the proponent in a contested probate may properly require the particularization of the charges of fraud and undue influence asserted to defeat the probate. The proponent’s demand for a bill of particulars is directed to the allegations of fraud and undue influence in paragraph 3 of the contestant’s objections.Ī Kings County Probate Lawyer said that, the application will be treated as though the proponent were seeking a bill by motion in the first instance, since it calls upon the Court to determine the nature and extent of the items, if any, which the contestant should furnish to the proponent. The contestant has made application to the Court for an order vacating and setting aside the proponent’s demand for a bill of particulars, or in the alternative, modifying said demand, and for such other, further and different relief as to the Court may seem necessary and proper. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |