Case Name: In re VETTER'S ESTATE
Court: New York Surrogate's Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-04-04
Citations: 158 N.Y.S. 449
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re VETTER’S ESTATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 158
Pages: 449–449

Head Matter:
In re VETTER’S ESTATE.
(Surrogate’s Court, New York County.
April 4, 1916.)
Pleading @=320-—Bill oe Particulars—Probate Proceedings.
In a proceeding to probate an alleged will, contested on the ground of undue influence, the contestants would not be required to furnish a bill of particulars, stating the names of the persons exercising the undue influence, prior to the trial, as the terms of the will usually indicate the individuals so benefited as to create a suspicion of undue influence in the minds of those less favored, and the persons having the opportunity for exercising undue influence are invariably well known to proponent.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 972; Dec. Dig. <@=>320.]
Proceeding to prove an alleged will of Jacob Vetter. On application for a bill of particulars.
Application denied.
See, also, 158 N. Y. Supp. 450.
Lewis S. Goebel, of New York City, for proponents.
Low, Miller & Low, of New York City, for contestants.
Morris Blau, of New York City, for Herman Lips.

Opinion:
FOWLER, S.
A petition has been filed asking that a certain script purporting to be the last will of the deceased be admitted to probate, and objections to the probate have been filed by certain of the next of kin. In their objections the contestants allege that the execution of the script was obtained by undue influence, and the proponent makes this application for a bill of particulars which will state the names of the persons who exercised the undue influence on the testator. I am inclined to think that the contestants should not be compelled to give the names of such persons prior to the trial, as the terms of the will usually indicate the particular individuals who are so benefited by its provisions as to create a suspicion in the minds of those less favored that undue influence was exercised on the testator, and the persons who had facilities for that close and intimate relationship with the testator which would afford them an opportunity for exercising undue influence are invariably well known to the proponent.
The application is therefore denied.