In re the Estate of Weinstock
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.
We hold that in the circumstances disclosed by this record the Surrogate was warranted in concluding that there had been such a breach of their professional responsibility to the decedent as to require that the lawyers named as executors of his will be precluded from serving in that capacity.
The question is not whether the proof would be sufficient to sustain a finding of such undue influence as to warrant denying the decedent’s will admission to probate. The issue is much narrower and concededly has received almost no articulated judicial attention. Was there here such impropriety and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. HobsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Riggs v. . PalmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- In Re the Will of PutnamNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Rosenthal v. HarwoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
3Cited by63 opinions
- S & S Hotel Ventures Limited Partnership v. 777 S. H. Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Niesig v. Team INew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- In re HofAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- People v. AddimandoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- In re GreeneNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.