Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re the Estate Musso
Citations: 227 A.D.2d 404; 642 N.Y.S.2d 322; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4922
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 6, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court
Chemical Bank and Rebecca Roczen Carley appeal an order from the Surrogate’s Court of Kings County, which vacated a previous decree admitting to probate the Last Will and Testament of Florence Musso, dated February 1, 1991, and revoked Letters Testamentary granted to them. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, with costs to be paid personally by the appellants. Florence Musso, who died on June 16, 1991, at age 90, had an estate valued at approximately $6.7 million. She was unmarried, had no children, and was estranged from her family except for a niece. Musso created a will in 1981 that included a bequest to her niece and distributed her estate to various charities. After a hip injury in 1990, she formed a relationship with Dr. Carley and her husband, Tom Roczen, whom she lived with and financially supported, giving them about $440,000. On July 2, 1990, Musso executed a new will that bequeathed shares of Bristol-Meyers Squibb stock to her grandnephew and the remainder to charities. A subsequent will on February 1, 1991, left all Bristol-Meyers Squibb shares to her grandnephew and named Dr. Carley and Tom Roczen as residuary legatees, with Chemical Bank and Dr. Carley as executors. The 1981 and 1990 wills were not filed with the Surrogate’s Court, and charities were only notified of the earlier will's bequests in December 1992. The Surrogate’s Court initially admitted the 1991 will to probate on December 23, 1992, but the charities petitioned to vacate this decree in August 1993, citing grounds of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity. The court found that the petitioners presented a sufficient basis for contesting the will and a reasonable probability of success, leading to the decree's vacatur. The appellate court determined that the lower court acted within its discretion and upheld the decision, rejecting the appellants' remaining arguments as meritless.