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: Gloria Marsloe, deceased. Lawrence M. Greebel, respondent; Victor Caruso, et al., appellants. (File No. 361617/10) Siegel & Siegel, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Michael D. Siegel of counsel),
Argued—September 27, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a probate proceeding, the objectants appeal from an order of the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated November 16, 2010, which granted the petitioner's motion for preliminary letters testamentary.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the objectants personally.
Insofar as is pertinent herein, EPTL 3–3.2 provides as follows:
“(a) An attesting witness to a will to whom a beneficial disposition or appointment of property is made is a competent witness and compellable to testify respecting the execution of such will as if no such disposition or appointment had been made, subject to the following:
“(1) Any such disposition or appointment made to an attesting witness is void unless there are, at the time of execution and attestation, at least two other attesting witnesses to the will who receive no beneficial disposition or appointment thereunder.”
The objectants to the subject will primarily contend that the petitioner is disqualified from acting as executor under the will because his appointment as executor constitutes a “beneficial disposition,” and he was also one of only two attesting witnesses to the will. However, the statutory commission attendant upon the performance of one's duties as an executor appointed under a will is not in the nature of a testamentary bequest or benefit, but instead represents compensation for services rendered (see McDonough v. Loughlin, 20 Barb 238; see also Children's Aid Soc. of City of N.Y. v Loveridge, 25 Sickels 387; Matter of Bitterman, 203 Misc. 796, 800, affd 281 App.Div. 1024). Therefore, even though the petitioner was only one of two attesting witnesses to the subject will, the fact that he is named executor of the will does not mean that he is receiving a “beneficial disposition” under the will so as to disqualify him from that position pursuant to EPTL 3–3.2 (see Matter of Maset, 25 Misc.3d 1229[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 52335[u]; Matter of Fracht, 94 Misc.2d 664, 668). In addition, there is no merit to the objectants' contention that the phrase “appointment of property” as used in the statute includes an individual's appointment as executor thereunder. Accordingly, the Surrogate's Court properly granted the petitioner's application for preliminary letters testamentary.
The objectants' remaining contentions are without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2010–11889
Decided: October 25, 2011
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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)