Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Gabriel PENNINO, deceased. Kathleen H. Marino, respondent; Christopher Pennino, appellant; Laura Pennino, objectant.
In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant Christopher Pennino appeals from a decree of the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated May 18, 1998, which, upon an order of the same court, dated April 29, 1998, granting summary judgment to the proponent of the will, Kathleen H. Marino, and dismissing the objections of the appellant and Laura Pennino alleging lack of capacity and undue influence, admitted to probate the last will and testament of the decedent, Gabriel Pennino.
ORDERED that the decree is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, so much of the order dated April 29, 1998, as granted that branch of the proponent's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the objections based on undue influence is vacated and that branch of the motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
There is no basis for the appellant's contention that the testator lacked the testamentary capacity to execute a new will on April 14, 1997 (see, Matter of Kumstar, 66 N.Y.2d 691, 692, 496 N.Y.S.2d 414, 487 N.E.2d 271). However, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of the exercise of undue influence to warrant a trial on that question. The proponent of the will, Kathleen Marino, had both the motive and the opportunity to exercise undue influence, and there is evidence that she may have utilized such influence (see, Matter of Walther, 6 N.Y.2d 49, 188 N.Y.S.2d 168, 159 N.E.2d 665). Indeed, Marino kept her marriage to the testator a secret from the testator's children. Further, she was instrumental in the expeditious execution of the new will three days after the wedding and one month before the testator died (see, Matter of Delyanis, 252 A.D.2d 585, 676 N.Y.S.2d 219).
Accordingly, the questions of undue influence is remitted to the Surrogate's Court for trial.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 08, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)