§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of the Estate of Robyn R. Lewis, Deceased. James Robert Simmons, Respondent; Meredith M. Stewart, et al., Appellants.

Brief

14 Cited authorities

  1. Mercury Bay v. San Diego

    76 N.Y.2d 256 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 131 times
    In Mercury Bay Boating Club v San Diego YachtClub (76 NY2d 256), we strictly construed the provisions of the trust instrument, the Deed of Gift, to allow multihulled vessels to compete in the America's Cup race.

  2. Bingham v. New York City Transit Auth.

    99 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 75 times

    13 Argued January 14, 2003. Decided February 20, 2003. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 30, 2001, which affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered in New York County, granting a motion by defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Constantine P. Kokkoris, for appellant. Lawrence Heisler, for respondents. Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley

  3. State of New York v. Barone

    74 N.Y.2d 332 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 38 times

    Argued September 7, 1989 Decided October 19, 1989 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, S. Barrett Hickman, J. Allen H. Weiss and Benjamin Shedler for appellants. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (John G. Proudfit, O. Peter Sherwood, Helene G. Goldberger and Harvey Berman of counsel), for respondents. BELLACOSA, J. Confronted by the defendants landfill owners repeated violations of regulatory and even prior judicial directives, the Department of

  4. Lichtman v. Grossbard

    73 N.Y.2d 792 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 35 times
    In Lichtman v Grossbard (73 N.Y.2d 792), in affirming a holding that the plaintiff, an operator of a nursing home which cared for the defendant's husband prior to his death, was not entitled to recover, the Court of Appeals declined to reach the plaintiff's constitutional challenge because it had been raised for the first time on appeal. The Lichtman court cautioned, however, that its affirmance should not be construed as a rejection of the view that the necessaries rule should be modified as a matter of common-law or constitutional principles.

  5. Slater v. Gallman

    38 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 51 times

    Submitted October 14, 1975 Decided November 20, 1975 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, JOSEPH DI FEDE, J. Alfred S. Julien, Stuart A. Schlesinger and David Jaroslawicz for appellant. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Samuel A. Hirshowitz and David H. Berman of counsel), for respondents. JASEN, J. On this appeal the principal issue is whether a taxpayer may challenge, by means of an action for declaratory judgment, an assessment made by the

  6. Matter of Snide

    52 N.Y.2d 193 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 34 times
    Reforming and admitting to probate identical mutual wills which were mistakenly executed

  7. Matter of Litwack

    13 Misc. 3d 1011 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    No. 1118/06. October 19, 2006. Gibney Anthony Flaherty, LLP, for nominated executrix. OPINION OF THE COURT RENEE R. ROTH, S.Page 1012 Incident to this probate proceeding in the estate of Gloria Litwack, the court is required to construe two statutes governing the execution and revocation of wills (EPTL 3-2.1, 3-4.1) that appear to be in conflict. The circumstances which created the issue are as follows. Testatrix's handwritten obliteration of a paragraph in the propounded instrument was witnessed

  8. Matter of Cullen

    174 Misc. 2d 236 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    September 25, 1997 Kysor Della Posta, Gowanda, for Celia M. Kroll. Timothy P. Frank, Springville, for Mary J. Root. LARRY M. HIMELEIN, J. Testator, Melvin D. Cullen, also known as Melvin Cullen Root, allegedly functionally illiterate and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder arising out of his military service during the Vietnam War, executed a will on November 26, 1975, which named his then wife, Linda Cullen (the third of six wives), executrix and her mother, Celia Kroll, substitute executrix

  9. Matter of Kleefeld

    55 N.Y.2d 253 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 14 times

    Argued January 12, 1982 Decided February 25, 1982 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, MILLARD L. MIDONICK, S. Cameron K. Wehringer and Claude Henry Kleefield for appellant. Donald H. Zuckerman for Joseph De Mul, respondent. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Charles Brody and Shirley Adelson Siegel of counsel), for ultimate charitable beneficiaries, respondent. Paul Richard Karan and Jorene R. Frenkl for New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, respondent

  10. Matter of Katz

    78 Misc. 2d 790 (N.Y. Misc. 1974)   Cited 2 times
    Holding the court had "the equitable power to defeat the proponent's fraud by staying her hand and enjoining her from claiming under [the will]."