Summary Judgement Motion in a Will Contest: An Updated Proponent’s Perspective

By: Gary E. Bashian, Esq.

A motion for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR § 3212 or § 3211, is a powerful procedural tool that can end litigation immediately.

Summary judgment can deliver a swift and decisive victory on the outcome of a matter. It can limit the issues, or award the broadest types of relief by ending all claims. When granted, it can avoid years of potential litigation and expense.

But for all of its versatility, drafting a motion for summary judgment can be a daunting and complex undertaking. The facts (hopefully none in question), and the applicable law in every matter can make it difficult to identify issues with no triable issue of fact. Communicating them clearly to the Court so as to show that summary judgment should be granted is the challenge.

Advertisement

“Death Bed” “Quickie” Marriages Held to be Void Ab Initio by Appellate Division

Elder abuse, including the financial exploitation of elderly individuals, especially by non family members, who have become mentally incapacitated[1] is an unfortunate and growing problem in our society. The unique vulnerabilities of those abused, the easily overlooked evidence of such abuse, and the sometimes invisible nature of the abuse itself, make this a difficult issue to both recognize and address, even by those closest to its victims.  This abuse, compounded by individuals seeking to profit from their abuse and seemingly statutory loopholes allowing them to do so beckoned judicial intervention.

Court of Appeals Rules there is Privity between the Estate Planner and the Client’s Personal Estate Representative: But no Privity to Beneficiaries of the Estate

The traditional protection from legal malpractice claims afforded Estate practitioners by the doctrine of Privity has been relaxed by a recent New York Court of Appeals decision.

In the Estate of Saul Schneider v Finmann[i], a unanimous Court of Appeals has ruled that a personal Estate representative “stands in the shoes of the decedent,” and therefore has “the capacity to maintain a malpractice claim on the Estate’s behalf[ii].”