Case ID: misc_202/html/0015-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Frankenthaler, S.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Estate of Wolfgang S. Schwabacher, Deceased.
    Surrogate’s Court, New York County,
    May 26, 1952.
    
      Hays, Wolf, Schwabacher, Shlar & Epstein for Harold K. Guinsburg, as executor of Wolfgang S. Schwabacher, deceased, petitioner.
    
      Chauncey R. Levy, special guardian for Christopher C. Schwabacher, an infant, respondent.
   Frankenthaler, S.

Upon these facts, the court holds that section 26 of the Decedent Estate Law is not operative so as to work a statutory revocation of the will in favor of the after-born child. Provision for the payment of life insurance proceeds to after-born children is a “ settlement ” within the statute (Matter of Kirk, 191 Misc. 473; Matter of Froeb, 143 Misc. 660; Matter of Backer, 148 Misc. 318; Matter of Hagendorn, 41 N. Y. S. 2d 491). The fact that the infant’s interest in the insurance policies was contingent upon his surviving his mother does not affect the result (Matter of Kirk, supra; Matter of Kreutz, 49 N. Y. S. 2d 402; cf. McLean v. McLean, 207 N. Y. 365).

Submit decree on notice or consent.