Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Eisenfeld

New York Surrogate's Court

Decided December 12, 1966PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdward S. Silver, J.

The court, on its own motion, strikes the objections, which are the usual omnibus objections, to the propounded instrument, as the contestant’s financial interest is the same under the will as it would be in the event of intestacy. *210Section 147 of the Surrogate’s Court Act enumerates the persons who may file objections to a will offered for probate, and the cases construing that section hold that a person, in order to contest the probate of a will, must have a financial interest to protect or stand to gain by the denial of probate. (Matter of Haddock, 22 Misc 2d 694; Matter of Bahrenburg, 200…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In re the Probate of the Will of HaddockNew York Surrogate's Court · 1960
  2. In re the Probate of the Will of BahrenburgNew York Surrogate's Court · 1951

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of ChadwellNew York Surrogate's Court · 1968
  2. In re the Estate of BasileNew York Surrogate's Court · 1970
  3. In re Estate of BrumerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
  4. In re the Estate of TurnerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API