Published on:

Appellants Bring Appeal Regarding Codicil


This is a matter dealing with the probate of a last will and testament. This case is being held in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.


The appellants are appealing and order that was made in the Surrogate’s Court of Queens County. The order is dated the 27th of March, 2007 and grants the motion made by the respondent for leave to file objections to the codicil. The order also denied their cross motion for a decree to admit the will and the codicil to probate and to direct the letters testamentary and letters of trusteeship to be issued to them. The were also denied the approval of a stipulation of a settlement that they made with the American Society for Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Inc that was approved by the Attorney General of the State of New York.

Court Discussion

The respondent motioned for leave in order to file objections to the purported codicil to the last will and testament of the decedent should have been denied by the Surrogate’s Court of Queens County. a New York Probate Lawyer said the respondent provided speculative allegations regarding the decedent’s lack of testamentary capacity and susceptibility to undue influence when executing the codicil. His arguments lacked good cause to be provided with the leave to file objections.

The respondent offered a report from a neurologist as evidence for his case, but the neurologist had never examined the decedent. The information provided was all presumptive. The neurologist only used the medical records of the decedent to make his opinions in the matter. Additionally, Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said the statements made by the neurologists were in fact contradicted by the primary physician of the decedent. The treating physician of the decedent saw the decedent on a daily basis and testified that on the day the codicil was executed the decedent was alert, oriented, and had the capability to hold conversations. There were two attesting witnesses in the matter that also contradicted the testimony that was provided by the neurologist.

Court Decision

The court is ordering that the previous order made by the Surrogate’s Court of Queens County be reversed. The motion made by the respondent for leave to file objections to the codicil is denied. The portion of the cross motion made by the appellants that was for the approval of the stipulation of settlement is granted. Long Island Probate Lawyers said the case is remitted to the Surrogates Court of Queens County for the stipulation to be approved and the other branches of the cross motion to be settled where as the letters testamentary and letters of trusteeship will be granted to the appellants.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates has a team of experienced New York probate lawyers who are ready and willing to help you through any legal issue that you may be having. You may contact one of our offices that are located conveniently throughout the city of New York at any time. A free consultation will be provided to discuss your case.

Contact Information