existing statutory framework in New York

2002For the following reasons the court finds that decedent’s repeated use of the legally significant phrase “share and share alike” is evidence of decedent’s intent to rebut the existing statutory presumption of per stirpital distribution and to ensure that all members of the class (that is, descendants in any degree to Jean Elizabeth Goodwin) share equally (i.e., per capita) (see, Matter of Miller, 6 Misc 2d 711 ).

2002Furthermore, another canon that must be adhered to in a construction proceeding is that the decedent’s intent must be determined after reviewing the last will and testament in its entirety (see, e.g., Matter of Carmer, 71 NY2d 781 ).

1997In a number of very similar cases, this Court and the Court of Appeals have made it clear that, although undoubtedly a serious matter to the injured party, under the existing statutory framework a soft tissue injury causing even persistent and protracted back pain will not qualify as a “serious injury” in the absence of competent medical evidence establishing a meaningful impairment or limitation as a result of that pain (see, e.g., Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678 ; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 ; Honig v State of New York, 235 AD2d 779 ; Relin v Brotherton, 221 AD2d 840 ; Shames v Murtha, 204 AD

1997In a number of very similar cases, this Court and the Court of Appeals have made it clear that, although undoubtedly a serious matter to the injured party, under the existing statutory framework a soft tissue injury causing even persistent and protracted back pain will not qualify as a “serious injury” in the absence of competent medical evidence establishing a meaningful impairment or limitation as a result of that pain (see, e.g., Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678 ; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 ; Honig v State of New York, 235 AD2d 779 ; Relin v Brotherton, 221 AD2d 840 ; Shames v Murtha, 204 AD

1997In a number of very similar cases, this Court and the Court of Appeals have made it clear that, although undoubtedly a serious matter to the injured party, under the existing statutory framework a soft tissue injury causing even persistent and protracted back pain will not qualify as a “serious injury” in the absence of competent medical evidence establishing a meaningful impairment or limitation as a result of that pain (see, e.g., Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678 ; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 ; Honig v State of New York, 235 AD2d 779 ; Relin v Brotherton, 221 AD2d 840 ; Shames v Murtha, 204 AD

1997In a number of very similar cases, this Court and the Court of Appeals have made it clear that, although undoubtedly a serious matter to the injured party, under the existing statutory framework a soft tissue injury causing even persistent and protracted back pain will not qualify as a “serious injury” in the absence of competent medical evidence establishing a meaningful impairment or limitation as a result of that pain (see, e.g., Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678 ; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 ; Honig v State of New York, 235 AD2d 779 ; Relin v Brotherton, 221 AD2d 840 ; Shames v Murtha, 204 AD

1997In a number of very similar cases, this Court and the Court of Appeals have made it clear that, although undoubtedly a serious matter to the injured party, under the existing statutory framework a soft tissue injury causing even persistent and protracted back pain will not qualify as a “serious injury” in the absence of competent medical evidence establishing a meaningful impairment or limitation as a result of that pain (see, e.g., Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678 ; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 ; Honig v State of New York, 235 AD2d 779 ; Relin v Brotherton, 221 AD2d 840 ; Shames v Murtha, 204 AD

1997In a number of very similar cases, this Court and the Court of Appeals have made it clear that, although undoubtedly a serious matter to the injured party, under the existing statutory framework a soft tissue injury causing even persistent and protracted back pain will not qualify as a “serious injury” in the absence of competent medical evidence establishing a meaningful impairment or limitation as a result of that pain (see, e.g., Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678 ; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 ; Honig v State of New York, 235 AD2d 779 ; Relin v Brotherton, 221 AD2d 840 ; Shames v Murtha, 204 AD

1997In a number of very similar cases, this Court and the Court of Appeals have made it clear that, although undoubtedly a serious matter to the injured party, under the existing statutory framework a soft tissue injury causing even persistent and protracted back pain will not qualify as a “serious injury” in the absence of competent medical evidence establishing a meaningful impairment or limitation as a result of that pain (see, e.g., Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678 ; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 ; Honig v State of New York, 235 AD2d 779 ; Relin v Brotherton, 221 AD2d 840 ; Shames v Murtha, 204 AD

1997In a number of very similar cases, this Court and the Court of Appeals have made it clear that, although undoubtedly a serious matter to the injured party, under the existing statutory framework a soft tissue injury causing even persistent and protracted back pain will not qualify as a “serious injury” in the absence of competent medical evidence establishing a meaningful impairment or limitation as a result of that pain (see, e.g., Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678 ; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 ; Honig v State of New York, 235 AD2d 779 ; Relin v Brotherton, 221 AD2d 840 ; Shames v Murtha, 204 AD

1997In a number of very similar cases, this Court and the Court of Appeals have made it clear that, although undoubtedly a serious matter to the injured party, under the existing statutory framework a soft tissue injury causing even persistent and protracted back pain will not qualify as a “serious injury” in the absence of competent medical evidence establishing a meaningful impairment or limitation as a result of that pain (see, e.g., Scheer v Koubek, 70 NY2d 678 ; Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230 ; Honig v State of New York, 235 AD2d 779 ; Relin v Brotherton, 221 AD2d 840 ; Shames v Murtha, 204 AD

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978Notwithstanding the fact that some of the periods of delay herein could have been permissible under the more liberal time periods contained in section 297 of the Executive Law, as amended by chapter 729 of the Laws of 1977, in this case we find the delay to have been so excessive under the existing statutory framework as to divest the respondent of jurisdiction (cf. State Div. of Human Rights v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 61 AD2d 25 ).

1978Moreover, under the present Constitution of the State of New York and the existing statutory framework, the jurisdic tion of the Surrogate’s Court has been significantly expanded in the more than 60 years that have elapsed since the decision was rendered in Matter of Lee (supra).

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For

1978A multiplicity of issues which were previously deemed to be outside the ambit of the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction or incapable of being determined in a particular proceeding are presently being adjudicated in the Surrogate’s Court (Matter of Maki v Estate of Ziehm, 55 AD2d 454 , modfg and affg 79 Misc 2d 467 ; Matter of Abraham L., 53 AD2d 669; Matter of Horton, 51 AD2d 856 ; Dunham v Dunham, 40 AD2d 912 ; Matter of Benjamin, 93 Misc 2d 1084 ; Matter of Deitch, 92 Misc 2d 942; Matter of Reed, 91 Misc 2d 997 ; Matter of Finkle, 90 Misc 2d 550 ; Matter of London, 90 Misc 2d 351 ; Matter of For