Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Estate of Wagner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided August 8, 2014No. Appeal No. 2Published

1Dissent

Peradotto and Lindley, JJ.

(dissenting). We respectfully dissent. In our view, Surrogate’s Court properly determined that the language of decedent’s will is clear and unambiguous, and that the will must therefore be enforced according to its terms. We would thus affirm the decree in appeal No. 2. It is well settled that “testamentary instruments are strictly construed so as to give full effect to the testator’s clear intent” (Matter of Covert, 97 NY2d 68, 74 [2001]; see Matter of Murray, 84 AD3d 106, 113 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 874 [2012]), and that the best evidence of the testator’s intent…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. In re the Accounting of United States Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1957
  2. In Re the Estates of CovertNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
  3. In re the Estate CordNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. In re the Estate of WalkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  5. In Re the Accounting of Chase National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1935

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API