New York Court of Appeals, 1980

In re the Estate of Carper

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 26, 1980 · Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur in Memorandum

50 N.Y.2d 974; 409 N.E.2d 941; 431 N.Y.S.2d 468; 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2515

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

United States Ex Rel. United States Coast Guard v. Cerio (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1993)
In re Trustco Bank (New York Surrogate's Court 2012)
Bonet Cardona v. Holahan (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 2011)
Bonet Cardona v. Judith Holahan (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 2011)
In re the Construction & Effect of the Revocable Trust Agreement Dated November 9, 2001 by Kramer (New York Surrogate's Court 2008)
In re the Estate of Othmer (New York Supreme Court 2006)
In re the Estate of Othmer (New York Surrogate's Court 2000)
In re the Estate May (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Board of Trustees of the Museum of the American Indian v. Board of Trustees of the Huntington Free Library & Reading Room (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
In re Abrams (New York Supreme Court 1991)
In re the Estate of Casey (New York Surrogate's Court 1990)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable out of the estate.

The disputed paragraph in the decedent’s will evidenced a clear and unambiguous intention to bequeath the residue of *976 her estate for charitable purposes, and thus the gift does not fail for indefiniteness (EPTL 8-1.1). That the testatrix indicated in her will a collateral intention that the money be used to establish "memorials” in the memory of her departed relations does not compel a contrary conclusion, since the overriding charitable intent of the testatrix is apparent from the language of the paragraph in which the bequest was made (see Matter of Rupprecht, 271 App Div 376, affd 297 NY 462; see, also, Sherman v Richmond Hose Co., 230 NY 462, 469). Nor is it significant that the paragraph containing the charitable bequest contemplated further oral directions from the testatrix, for, as the Appellate Division correctly noted, the intention of the testatrix to give additional instructions concerning the details of the memorials does not conflict with the expressed intention that the residue of the estate be distributed by the named beneficiaries to charitable institutions selected by them "in their sole discretion”. And, under our decisional law, the latter intention should be carried out, even if the testatrix’ unexpressed wishes regarding the character of the memorials cannot be effected (see, generally, Matter of Nurse, 35 NY2d 381; see, also, Matter of Fabbri, 2 NY2d 236).

Because we find the language of the disputed will provision clear and free from any ambiguity, we have no need to resort to the extrinsic evidence offered by the contestants to elucidate the intentions of the testatrix. Accordingly, we neither reach nor comment upon the conclusions of the courts below concerning the proper use of extrinsic evidence in will contests.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.