§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of the Estate of Muriel M. Nealon, Deceased. Christopher J. Nealon, as Executor of the Estate of Muriel M. Nealon, Deceased, Appellant; Peter J. Nealon, Respondent; Tracey McGann, Now Known as Tracey Nealon, Respondent.

Brief

9 Cited authorities

  1. Matter of Walther

    6 N.Y.2d 49 (N.Y. 1959)   Cited 308 times
    In Matter of Walther (6 N.Y.2d 49) the court held that the fact that the draftsman was a stranger to the decedent and was solicited by the proponent did not support a finding of undue influence, in view of the procedures followed in drafting and executing the document, and that further the mere fact that one is the sole legatee or sole distributee is not in itself evidence of the exercise of undue influence.

  2. Gordon v. Bialystoker Center

    45 N.Y.2d 692 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 154 times
    Finding fiduciary relationship where defendant-nursing home used control over plaintiff's finances to make a gift to the home

  3. Matter of Burke

    82 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)   Cited 98 times

    August 3, 1981 Appeal from the Westchester County Surrogate's Court, EVANS V. BREWSTER, S. Albert E. Gleeson (Morton N. Wekstein of counsel), for appellant. Charles G. Banks, Jr. (Irving Leavitt of counsel), for Franklin L. Brosgol, respondent. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Jerome K. Karver and Jonathan J. Silbermann of counsel), for ultimate charitable beneficiaries, respondents. GIBBONS, J. This is an appeal from a decree of the Surrogate's Court of Westchester County, dated December 10, 1979

  4. In re Estate of Nealon

    104 A.D.3d 1088 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 25 times

    2013-03-28 In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Muriel M. NEALON, Deceased. Christopher J. Nealon, as Executor of the Estate of Muriel M. Nealon, Deceased, Respondent; Peter J. Nealon, Respondent, and Tracey McGann, Now Known as Tracey Nealon, Appellant. Murphy, Burns, Barber & Murphy, LLP, Albany (Catherine A. Barber of counsel), for appellant. Parisi, Coan & Saccocio, PLLC, Schenectady (Nicholas E. Tishler, Niskayuna, of counsel), for Christopher J. Nealon, respondent. SPAIN Murphy, Burns, Barber & Murphy

  5. Stewart v. Bd. of Elections

    14 N.Y.3d 139 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 26 times
    Finding that judicial estoppel was inapplicable where it was not clear on the record whether the trial court adopted the party's initial position

  6. In re Nealon

    57 A.D.3d 1325 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 19 times

    No. 502820. December 31, 2008. Appeal from an order of the Surrogate's Court of Schenectady County (Kramer, S.), entered September 18, 2006, which, in a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103, granted respondents' motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition. Nicholas E. Tishler, Niskayuna, for Appellant. O'Connell Aronowitz, Albany (Kevin P. Hickey of counsel), for respondents. Before: Peters, Carpinello, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ. concur. Cardona, P.J.Page 1326 Petitioner, the executor of the estate

  7. Matter of Schoenewerg

    14 N.E.2d 777 (N.Y. 1938)   Cited 30 times
    In Matter of Schoenewerg (277 N.Y. 424), the Court of Appeals held that a cestui who obtained a full and fair statement of what had been done by the fiduciary, and thereupon signed a general release, has no standing thereafter to set such release aside on the grounds that there was an affirmative obligation on the part of the fiduciary to detail the open state of facts set before such cestui.

  8. Cowee v. Cornell

    75 N.Y. 91 (N.Y. 1878)   Cited 166 times
    In Cowee v. Cornell (75 N.Y. 91) it was said: "We return then to the question whether this case was one of constructive fraud. It may be stated as universally true that fraud vitiates all contracts, but as a general thing it is not presumed but must be proved by the party seeking to relieve himself from an obligation on that ground.

  9. Allen v. La Vaud

    213 N.Y. 322 (N.Y. 1915)   Cited 55 times
    In Allen v. La Vaud, 213 N.Y. 322, 107 N.E. 570, 572, a "dependent parent" was suffering from a disease which "to some extent affected his mind"; here, as noted above, we have a finding, supported by the evidence and not disputed by plaintiff, that the decedent "was alert mentally, and in full possession of her faculties, and was not in any way affected mentally by her physical condition at and before" the time when "she executed the assignment."