Legal Opinion
Murray v. Smith
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 15, 1989PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
— Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The trial court properly permitted respondent Carl Smith to testify about a conversation with the deceased in which she told him that she intended to give respondent Joanne Smith a gift of funds from a savings account. The testimony was not barred by the Dead Man’s Statute because there was no showing that Mr. Smith was "a person interested in the event” (CPLR 4519). A spouse of an interested party is not necessarily disqualified from testifying against the estate (see, Laka v Krystek, 261 NY 126, 130; Matter of Mead, 129 AD2d 1008,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In re the Estate of FriedmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- In re the Estate of FriedmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Laka v. KrystekNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
- Friedrich v. MartinNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
- In re the Estate of MeadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
3Cited by5 opinions
- Smith v. KuhnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Travers v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Trotti v. Estate of BuchananAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Matter of NewmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024
- Washington v. FieldsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001