IN RE MTR. OF KATHRYN

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 2004-04793.

Advocates

Edith Blumberg, Norwich, N.Y., for appellants. Greenfield Stein Senior, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Barbara Levitan of counsel), for respondent.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

On December 29, 2000, Kathryn M. Neenan executed her last will and testament under the supervision of an attorney. The decedent had no children and appointed her niece, Jean L. Hickey, as executrix, dividing her estate between Jean and Stephen C. Hickey, Jean's son and the decedent's great-nephew. The decedent left no bequests to Alfred Adams or to the children of her predeceased niece, Miriam Langella. After the decedent's death, Jean offered the will for probate. Alfred Adams, Maureen Caivano, Victor Langella, and Richard Langella (the objectants) filed objections to probate and requested a jury trial on the issue of undue influence.

At trial, evidence showed that Stephen Hickey acted as the decedent's accountant, assisted with her finances, played an active role in selecting her attorney, and was involved in preparing the will. The Surrogate's Court initially ruled in favor of the proponent, denying the objectants' motions to set aside the jury verdict or for a new trial on undue influence, admitted the will to probate, and awarded letters testamentary to Jean Hickey. The objectants appealed from this decree.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Surrogate's Court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that an inference of undue influence arose due to the beneficiary's confidential relationship and involvement in drafting the will.
Whether the court properly excluded a photocopy of a prior will offered by the objectants due to lack of explanation for the unavailability of the original.
Whether the court properly excluded the entire guardianship file pertaining to the decedent on grounds of potential prejudice and hearsay.
Whether the objectants' remaining contentions warranted relief.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Matter of Putnam, 257 NY 140	Establishes that an inference of undue influence arises when a beneficiary is in a confidential or fiduciary relationship and involved in drafting the will.	Applied to find that Stephen Hickey’s role created an inference of undue influence requiring explanation.
Matter of Collins, 124 AD2d 48	Supports the inference of undue influence and the burden on the beneficiary to explain the bequest circumstances.	Used to reinforce the requirement that Stephen Hickey explain the bequest.
Matter of Bach, 133 AD2d 455	Clarifies that the adequacy of the explanation on undue influence is a question of fact for the jury.	Supported the court’s conclusion that the jury should have been instructed accordingly.
Matter of Burke, 82 AD2d 260	Confirms that the question of undue influence is factual for the jury.	Reinforced the need for jury consideration on undue influence.
Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 639	Establishes that secondary evidence of a will is inadmissible unless the original is unavailable and a diligent search is made.	Applied to exclude the photocopy of the prior will due to failure to demonstrate diligent search for the original.
Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117	Permits excluding evidence that is prejudicial hearsay under CPLR 4518(a).	Supported exclusion of the guardianship file to avoid prejudicial hearsay.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of Stephen Hickey’s relationship with the decedent, noting his fiduciary role as accountant, financial assistant, and involvement in selecting counsel and preparing the will. This created an inference of undue influence, shifting the burden to Stephen to explain the bequest. The Surrogate's Court’s failure to instruct the jury on this inference was error, necessitating a new trial on undue influence.

The court also reviewed evidentiary rulings, affirming the exclusion of a photocopy of a prior will because the objectants did not adequately explain the unavailability of the original or demonstrate a diligent search. Similarly, the guardianship file was excluded due to the risk of prejudicial hearsay, properly protecting the integrity of the trial.

Other objections raised by the objectants were found to lack merit and were not sustained.

Holding and Implications

The court REVERSED the decree of the Surrogate’s Court insofar as appealed, granted the motion to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of undue influence in the interest of justice, and remitted the matter for a new trial on that issue.

The decision directly affects the parties by requiring reconsideration of undue influence through a new jury trial. The court did not establish any new legal precedent but reaffirmed existing principles regarding undue influence in will contests and evidentiary standards for probate proceedings.

Show full summary ...

In the Matter of the Estate of KATHRYN M. NEENAN, Deceased. JEAN L. HICKEY, Respondent; ALFRED ADAMS et al., Appellants.

Ordered that the decree is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of undue influence in the interest of justice is granted, the order dated April 20, 2004, is modified accordingly, and the matter is remitted to the Surrogate's Court, Rockland County, for a new trial on the issue of undue influence.

On December 29, 2000, the decedent Kathryn M. Neenan executed her last will and testament under the supervision of an attorney. The decedent had no children. She designated her niece, Jean L. Hickey, as the executrix of her estate, and divided her probate assets between Jean and Stephen C. Hickey, her great-nephew and Jean's son. The decedent left nothing to her nephew Alfred Adams, or to Maureen Caivano, Victor Langella, or Richard Langella, the children of the decedent's predeceased niece, Miriam Langella. Following the decedent's death, Jean offered the will for probate, and Alfred, Maureen, Victor, and Richard (hereinafter the objectants) filed objections to probate, and demanded a jury trial.

At trial, testimony was elicited that Stephen acted as the decedent's accountant, and that he assisted the decedent with her finances as well. Moreover, Stephen played an active role in selecting the decedent's attorney, and was directly involved in the preparation of the testamentary instrument offered for probate.

An inference of undue influence, requiring the beneficiary to explain the circumstances of the bequest, arises when a beneficiary under a will was in a confidential or fiduciary relationship with the testator and was involved in the drafting of the will ( see Matter of Putnam, 257 NY 140; Matter of Collins, 124 AD2d 48). Although the inference does not shift the burden of proof on the issue of undue influence, it places the burden on the beneficiary to explain the circumstances of the bequest ( see Matter of Bach, 133 AD2d 455; Matter of Collins, supra.) The adequacy of the explanation presents a question of fact for the jury ( see Matter of Bach, supra; Matter of Burke, 82 AD2d 260). Since Stephen served as the decedent's accountant, assisted her with her financial affairs, chose an attorney for her, and was directly involved in the preparation of the decedent's will, the Surrogate's Court erred in declining to instruct the jury that there was an inference of undue influence, and that the burden should have been placed on Stephen to explain the circumstances of the bequest ( see PJI2d 7:56). Accordingly, a new trial on the issue of undue influence is required.

The Surrogate's Court properly refused to admit into evidence a photocopy of a prior will allegedly executed by the decedent, as the objectants failed to explain the unavailability of the primary evidence ( see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 639). Since the objectants failed to establish that they made a diligent search in the location where the prior will was last known to have been kept, the photocopy was properly excluded from evidence ( id.)

Further, the Surrogate's Court correctly declined to admit into evidence the entire guardianship file pertaining to the decedent. The admission of these materials would have been severely prejudicial as they may have contained damaging hearsay ( see Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 122; CPLR 4518 [a]).

The objectants' remaining contentions are without merit.