Matter of Wilson

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation698 N.Y.S.2d 854,266 A.D.2d 164
PartiesIn the Matter of the Estate of CHELLY WILSON, Deceased.<BR>BONDI WALTERS, Respondent;<BR>DANIEL BOURLA, Appellant.
Decision Date30 November 1999

266 A.D.2d 164
698 N.Y.S.2d 854

In the Matter of the Estate of CHELLY WILSON, Deceased.
BONDI WALTERS, Respondent;
DANIEL BOURLA, Appellant.

Decided November 30, 1999.


Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

The Surrogate properly found that proponent-respondent made out a prima facie case for dismissal of objectant's claims of lack of testamentary capacity, and fraud and undue influence, and objectant's consequent burden to demonstrate the existence of triable issues was not met by his conclusory and speculative assertions of a vast conspiracy by the will beneficiaries (see, Matter of Bustanoby, 262 AD2d 407; Matter of Tully, 227 AD2d 288; Matter of Bartel, 214 AD2d 476, 477). Moreover, objectant has failed to demonstrate that any purpose would be served by additional discovery or that there are "special circumstances" warranting expansion of the so-called three-two rule (see, 22 NYCRR 207.27).

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • In re Proceeding, 2015–4699.
    • United States
    • New York Surrogate Court
    • February 9, 2017
    ...will provide a basis to oppose the motion (see id.; Reale v. Tsoukas, 2017 NYApp.Div. Lexis 202 [2d Dept 2017]; In re Estate of Wilson, 266 A.D.2d 164, 698 N.Y.S.2d 854 [1st Dept 1999] ). Indeed no purpose would be served if courts routinely granted such relief without considering whether, ......
  • In re Fischer
    • United States
    • New York Surrogate Court
    • September 1, 2022
    ...is in the possession of the moving party (see id.; Reale v Tsoukas, 2017 NYApp Div Lexis 202 [2d Dept 2017]; In re Estate of Wilson, 266 A.D.2d 164 [1st Dept 1999]). Respondents do not explain how the discovery sought would assist in their defense of the motion. Mere hope that favorable evi......
  • In re Duzhansky
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 23, 2017
    ...demonstrate that there were special circumstances warranting expansion of the time period set forth in that rule (see Matter of Wilson, 266 A.D.2d 164, 698 N.Y.S.2d 854 ). RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ.,...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT