46 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1899–2026 12 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re the Estate of Ellisgreen2 sentences2025"The cardinal rule of construction of a will and, concomitantly, of an in terrorem clause, is to carry out the intent of the testator" ( Matter of Ellis , 252 AD2d 118, 127 ; see Matter of Singer , 13 NY3d at 451 ; Matter of Tumminello v Bolten , 59 AD3d 727, 728 ). 2025"The cardinal rule of construction of a will and, concomitantly, of an in terrorem clause, is to carry out the intent of the testator" ( Matter of Ellis , 252 AD2d 118, 127 ; see Matter of Singer , 13 NY3d at 451 ; Matter of Tumminello v Bolten , 59 AD3d 727, 728 ). | 10 | 15 |
In Re the Estate of Singergreen2 sentences2025The Surrogate's Court properly determined that the objectant violated the in terrorem clause in the will and thereby forfeited any bequests to him under the will and the trust. "'[W]hile in terrorem clauses are enforceable, they are not favored and [must be] strictly construed'" ( Carlson v Colangelo , ___ NY3d ___, ___, 2025 NY Slip Op 02264, *3 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Matter of Singer , 13 NY3d 447, 451 ; see Matter of Biondo , 215 AD3d 677 , 678). 2025"The cardinal rule of construction of a will and, concomitantly, of an in terrorem clause, is to carry out the intent of the testator" ( Matter of Ellis , 252 AD2d 118, 127 ; see Matter of Singer , 13 NY3d at 451 ; Matter of Tumminello v Bolten , 59 AD3d 727, 728 ). | 10 | 12 |
Tumminello v. Boltengreen2 sentences2026Here, Wayne [*2]failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the in terrorem clause of the trust should be invoked against the Serinos for commencing the action, and the Serinos failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the in terrorem clause should be invoked against Wayne or Stuart based on the arguments they advanced in this proceeding/action, as no party challenged the validity of the trust instrument ( see id. ; Matter of Sochurek , 174 AD3d 908 , 910-911; cf. Matter of Tumminello v Bolten , 59 AD3d 727, 728 ). 2025"The cardinal rule of construction of a will and, concomitantly, of an in terrorem clause, is to carry out the intent of the testator" ( Matter of Ellis , 252 AD2d 118, 127 ; see Matter of Singer , 13 NY3d at 451 ; Matter of Tumminello v Bolten , 59 AD3d 727, 728 ). | 5 | 8 |
Matter of Neva M. Strom Irrevocable Trust IIIgreen2 sentences2025Strom , 203 AD3d at 1257 [beneficiary's pursuit of [*10]discovery in Surrogate's Court over trust assets to which she was not entitled triggered the trust's in terrorem clause and caused her to forfeit disposition thereunder]; Matter of Tumminello v Bolten , 59 AD3d 727, 728 [2d Dept 2009] [petitioner's challenge to Trust was "in direct contravention of the settlor's apparent intention to prevent such actions by including an in terrorem clause"]). 2025Strom</i>, 203 AD3d at 1257 [beneficiary's pursuit of [*10]discovery in Surrogate's Court over trust assets to which she was not entitled triggered the trust's in terrorem clause and caused her to forfeit disposition thereunder]; <i>Matter of Tumminello v Bolten</i>, 59 AD3d 727, 728 [2d Dept 2009] [petitioner's challenge to Trust was "in direct contravention of the settlor's apparent intention to prevent such actions by including an in terrorem clause"]). | 2 | 5 |
In re the Estate of Robbinsgreen2 sentences2015In discussing the distribution of the businesses in his will, decedent wrote, “If at the time of my demise, I own and operate [the businesses] . . . , such businesses] and assets shall pass to my heirs as set forth in this Article.” Inasmuch as there are issues of fact whether decedent owned the businesses at the time of his death, we conclude that there are issues of fact whether objectant’s claims of ownership constitute an attempt “to impair, invalidate or set aside” a provision of the will (see Matter of Robbins, 144 Misc 2d 510, 512-513 [1989]). 2015In discussing the distribution of the businesses in his will, decedent wrote, “If at the time of my demise, I own and operate [the businesses] . . . , such businesses] and assets shall pass to my heirs as set forth in this Article.” Inasmuch as there are issues of fact whether decedent owned the businesses at the time of his death, we conclude that there are issues of fact whether objectant’s claims of ownership constitute an attempt “to impair, invalidate or set aside” a provision of the will (see Matter of Robbins, 144 Misc 2d 510, 512-513 [1989]). | 2 | 3 |
Carlson v. Colangelogreen2 sentences2025The Surrogate's Court properly determined that the objectant violated the in terrorem clause in the will and thereby forfeited any bequests to him under the will and the trust. "'[W]hile in terrorem clauses are enforceable, they are not favored and [must be] strictly construed'" ( Carlson v Colangelo , ___ NY3d ___, ___, 2025 NY Slip Op 02264, *3 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Matter of Singer , 13 NY3d 447, 451 ; see Matter of Biondo , 215 AD3d 677 , 678). 2025The Surrogate's Court properly determined that the objectant violated the in terrorem clause in the will and thereby forfeited any bequests to him under the will and the trust. "'[W]hile in terrorem clauses are enforceable, they are not favored and [must be] strictly construed'" ( Carlson v Colangelo , ___ NY3d ___, ___, 2025 NY Slip Op 02264, *3 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Matter of Singer , 13 NY3d 447, 451 ; see Matter of Biondo , 215 AD3d 677 , 678). | 2 | 2 |
Salzman Sign Co. v. Beckgreen2 sentences2024First, accepting as true, as the court must, Petitioner's allegations that Respondents were involved in 1) RDN' s decision to challenge certain provisions of the Revocable Trust that disadvantaged RDN, 2) the filing of the 2015 Petition, and 3) the prosecution of the proceeding on behalf of RDN, Respondents were not acting as individuals; for legal purposes, they were the corporate entity acting only on its behalf (cf Salzman Sign Co. v Beck, 10 NY2d 63, 67 [1961] [explaining that in the business context, generally "an individual stockholder or officer is not liable for his corporation's engag 2024First, accepting as true, as the court must, Petitioner's allegations that Respondents were involved in 1) RDN' s decision to challenge certain provisions of the Revocable Trust that disadvantaged RDN, 2) the filing of the 2015 Petition, and 3) the prosecution of the proceeding on behalf of RDN, Respondents were not acting as individuals; for legal purposes, they were the corporate entity acting only on its behalf (cf Salzman Sign Co. v Beck, 10 NY2d 63, 67 [1961] [explaining that in the business context, generally "an individual stockholder or officer is not liable for his corporation's engag | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Probate of the Will of Cookgreen2 sentences2025"The intention must be gathered from all of the surrounding circumstances and the writings interpreted according to the purpose which the parties [*2]had in mind" ( Matter of Cook , 244 NY 63, 69 ; see Matter of Ellis , 252 AD2d at 127-128 ). 1998The cardinal rule of construction of a will and, concomitantly, of an in terrorem clause, is to carry out the intent of the testator (see, Matter of Fabbri, 2 NY2d 236 ; Matter of Martin, 255 NY 248 ; Matter of Cook, 244 NY 63 ; Williams v Jones, 166 NY 522 ; Fell v McCready, 236 App Div 390 ; Matter of Stiehler, supra; Matter of Blodgett, 168 Misc 898 ; Matter of Von Deilen, 154 Misc 877 ). | 1 | 4 |
Bingham v. New York City Transit Authoritygreen1 sentence2025Auth.</i>, 99 NY2d 355, 359 [2003]). <br><br> <b>Footnote 6:</b> In their pre-answer motion to dismiss, defendants argued, among other things, that plaintiff triggered the in terrorem clause by asserting that the Trust language concerning the income stream was mandatory, rather than discretionary. | 1 | 1 |
Carlson v. Colangelogreen2 sentences2025The Appellate Division concluded that "plaintiff contested the distribution of Dempsey's interest in Dempsaco in violation of the in terrorem clause" ( id. at 775). 2025The Appellate Division modified by reversing Supreme Court's award of attorneys' fees to defendant and otherwise affirmed, holding that defendants submitted evidence sufficient to show that "the plaintiff contested the distribution of [decedent's] interest in Dempsaco in violation of the in terrorem clause" ( 221 AD3d at 775 ).</p> <p>A trust instrument "is to be construed as written and the settlor's intention determined solely from the unambiguous language of the instrument itself" (<i>Mercury Bay Boating Club v San Diego Yacht Club</i>, 76 NY2d 256, 267 [1990]). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Estate of Fairbairngreen1 sentence2025It is well settled that in terrorem clauses are enforceable, "although not favored and [must be] strictly construed" ( Matter of Fairbairn , 46 AD3d 973, 974 [3d Dept 2007] quoting Matter of Ellis, 252 AD2d 118, 127 [2d Dept 1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 805 , [1999]; see EPTL 3-3.5 [b]). | 1 | 1 |
Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. Baidengreen1 sentence2025In granting summary judgment for defendants, the court again did not determine the effect, if any, of plaintiff's income-stream request.<p>In other contexts, we have held that failure to contest an issue on summary judgment may amount to a concession (<i>see Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v Baiden</i>, 36 NY2d 539, 544 [1975]; <i>cf. New York Commercial Bank v J. | 1 | 1 |
Mercury Bay Boating Club Inc. v. San Diego Yacht Clubgreen2 sentences2025The Appellate Division modified by reversing Supreme Court's award of attorneys' fees to defendant and otherwise affirmed, holding that defendants submitted evidence sufficient to show that "the plaintiff contested the distribution of [decedent's] interest in Dempsaco in violation of the in terrorem clause" ( 221 AD3d at 775 ).</p> <p>A trust instrument "is to be construed as written and the settlor's intention determined solely from the unambiguous language of the instrument itself" (<i>Mercury Bay Boating Club v San Diego Yacht Club</i>, 76 NY2d 256, 267 [1990]). 2025The Appellate Division modified by reversing Supreme Court's award of attorneys' fees to defendant and otherwise affirmed, holding that defendants submitted evidence sufficient to show that "the plaintiff contested the distribution of [decedent's] interest in Dempsaco in violation of the in terrorem clause" ( 221 AD3d at 775 ).</p> <p>A trust instrument "is to be construed as written and the settlor's intention determined solely from the unambiguous language of the instrument itself" (<i>Mercury Bay Boating Club v San Diego Yacht Club</i>, 76 NY2d 256, 267 [1990]). | 1 | 1 |
| Boles v. Lanhamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Estate of Singergreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Estate of Pritchardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pajak v. Pajakgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Marine Midland Bank, N. A.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re the Estate of Pasternack
green
2 sentences2024Here, RDN is the real party in interest (cf Matter of Pasternack, 52 Misc 2d at 415-416 ). 2024Here, RDN is the real party in interest (cf Matter of Pasternack, 52 Misc 2d at 415-416 ). | 3 | 1989–2024 |
PEOPLE EX REL. BLAKE v. Pataki
neutral
2 sentences2015In addition, objectant submitted an affidavit of petitioner’s attorney from a 2001 proceeding in which petitioner’s attorney averred that objectant and decedent built the businesses “at their own great expense.” With respect to the in terrorem clause, we note that, “while in terrorem clauses are enforceable, they are ‘not favored and [must be] strictly construed’ ” (Matter of Singer, 13 NY3d 447, 451 , rearg denied 14 NY3d 795 ). 2010Neither the nominated successor executor nor the drafter of a prior instrument of the testator are among those within this so-called statutory “safe harbor” of persons who may be deposed without fear of triggering an in terrorem clause. * However, the Court of Appeals has recently held that the “safe harbor” provisions of SCPA 1404 and EPTL 3-3.5 “are not exhaustive” (Matter of Singer, 13 NY3d 447, 449 [2009], rearg denied 14 NY3d 795 [2010]), apparently opening the door to permit any number of depositions outside the confines of SCPA 1404 and EPTL 3-3.5 which would previously have been consid | 3 | 2010–2022 |
Peters v. Noonan
green
2 sentences2015Matter of Peters, 124 AD3d 1266 [2015]; Matter of Tonawanda Seneca Nation v Noonan, 122 AD3d 1334 [2014], lv granted 25 NY3d 903 [2015]; Peters v Noonan, 871 F Supp 2d 218 [2012]). 2015Matter of Peters, 124 AD3d 1266 [2015]; Matter of Tonawanda Seneca Nation v Noonan, 122 AD3d 1334 [2014], lv granted 25 NY3d 903 [2015]; Peters v Noonan, 871 F Supp 2d 218 [2012]). | 3 | 2015–2015 |
Tonawanda Seneca Nation v. Noonan
neutral
2 sentences2015Matter of Peters, 124 AD3d 1266 [2015]; Matter of Tonawanda Seneca Nation v Noonan, 122 AD3d 1334 [2014], lv granted 25 NY3d 903 [2015]; Peters v Noonan, 871 F Supp 2d 218 [2012]). 2015Matter of Peters, 124 AD3d 1266 [2015]; Matter of Tonawanda Seneca Nation v Noonan, 122 AD3d 1334 [2014], lv granted 25 NY3d 903 [2015]; Peters v Noonan, 871 F Supp 2d 218 [2012]). | 3 | 2015–2015 |
Thompson v. Peters
green
2 sentences2015Matter of Peters, 124 AD3d 1266 [2015]; Matter of Tonawanda Seneca Nation v Noonan, 122 AD3d 1334 [2014], lv granted 25 NY3d 903 [2015]; Peters v Noonan, 871 F Supp 2d 218 [2012]). 2015Matter of Peters, 124 AD3d 1266 [2015]; Matter of Tonawanda Seneca Nation v Noonan, 122 AD3d 1334 [2014], lv granted 25 NY3d 903 [2015]; Peters v Noonan, 871 F Supp 2d 218 [2012]). | 3 | 2015–2015 |
In re the Estate of Zurkow
green
2 sentences1999The rule was applied in Matter of Zurkow ( 74 Misc 2d 736 ), where the court refused to construe an in terrorem clause prior to probate. 1994In Matter of Zurkow ( 74 Misc 2d 736 [Sur Ct, NY County 1973]), the Surrogate refused to construe an in terrorem clause prior to probate, citing the general rule. | 3 | 1979–1999 |
In re the Estate of Webb
green
2 sentences1999It is well settled since Davis (supra) that a will must be admitted to probate before a court may construe it (see, Matter of Webb, 122 Misc 129 , affd 208 App Div 793 ; Matter of Lachman, 100 Misc 2d 21 ). 1979As this court and others have indicated, the law is well established that a construction of a will cannot be had until probate has been decreed (Matter of Zurkow, 74 Misc 2d 736, 738 ; Matter of Webb, 122 Misc 129 , affd 208 App Div 793 ). | 2 | 1979–1999 |
Ely v. Vanderpoel
neutral
2 sentences1999It is well settled since Davis (supra) that a will must be admitted to probate before a court may construe it (see, Matter of Webb, 122 Misc 129 , affd 208 App Div 793 ; Matter of Lachman, 100 Misc 2d 21 ). 1979As this court and others have indicated, the law is well established that a construction of a will cannot be had until probate has been decreed (Matter of Zurkow, 74 Misc 2d 736, 738 ; Matter of Webb, 122 Misc 129 , affd 208 App Div 793 ). | 2 | 1979–1999 |
In re the Accounting of United States Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1998The cardinal rule of construction of a will and, concomitantly, of an in terrorem clause, is to carry out the intent of the testator (see, Matter of Fabbri, 2 NY2d 236 ; Matter of Martin, 255 NY 248 ; Matter of Cook, 244 NY 63 ; Williams v Jones, 166 NY 522 ; Fell v McCready, 236 App Div 390 ; Matter of Stiehler, supra; Matter of Blodgett, 168 Misc 898 ; Matter of Von Deilen, 154 Misc 877 ). 1986As in any construction proceeding, the court must attempt to ascertain the testator’s intention (Matter of Fabbri, 2 NY2d 236 ). | 2 | 1986–1998 |
In Re the Will of Putnam
green
2 sentences1994But the court essentially rendered the construction sought by the potential objectant in ruling that an examination of the will’s proponent (the testator’s son and attorney) would not violate the clause, since his Putnam affidavit (see, Matter of Putnam, 257 NY 140 [1931]) made him a witness whose examination is permitted under EPTL 3-3.5 (b) (3) (D). 1979The facts of this case, including the provisions of the will, do not disclose circumstances which require the submission of an affidavit in conformity with Matter of Putnam ( 257 NY 140 ) and Matter of Satterlee ( 281 App Div 251 ). | 2 | 1979–1994 |
In re the Estate of Ball
neutral
2 sentences1989Such clauses, however, are not favored by courts and are strictly construed (Matter of Alexander, 90 Misc 2d 482 , affd 63 AD2d 612 ; Matter of Ball, 57 Misc 2d 683 ; Matter of Pasternack, 52 Misc 2d 413 ). 1977(Matter of Ball, 57 Misc 2d 683 ; Matter of Cohn, NYLJ, Nov. 23, 1965, p 16, col 3, affd 26 AD2d 617 .) In a case directly on point, the Court of Appeals has held that a challenge to the validity of an excessive charitable gift cannot result in a disinheritance under an in terrorem clause (Unger v Loewy, 236 NY 73, 78 ). | 2 | 1977–1989 |
In re the Estate of Alexander
green
2 sentences1989Such clauses, however, are not favored by courts and are strictly construed (Matter of Alexander, 90 Misc 2d 482 , affd 63 AD2d 612 ; Matter of Ball, 57 Misc 2d 683 ; Matter of Pasternack, 52 Misc 2d 413 ). 1978Furthermore, a careful reading of Unger v Loewy ( 236 NY 73, 78 ) fails to reveal any holding of the Court of Appeals "that a challenge to the validity of an excessive charitable gift cannot result in disinheritance under an in terrorem clause” ( 90 Misc 2d 482, 486 ). | 2 | 1978–1989 |
Unger v. . Loewy
neutral
2 sentences1978Furthermore, a careful reading of Unger v Loewy ( 236 NY 73, 78 ) fails to reveal any holding of the Court of Appeals "that a challenge to the validity of an excessive charitable gift cannot result in disinheritance under an in terrorem clause” ( 90 Misc 2d 482, 486 ). 1977(Matter of Ball, 57 Misc 2d 683 ; Matter of Cohn, NYLJ, Nov. 23, 1965, p 16, col 3, affd 26 AD2d 617 .) In a case directly on point, the Court of Appeals has held that a challenge to the validity of an excessive charitable gift cannot result in a disinheritance under an in terrorem clause (Unger v Loewy, 236 NY 73, 78 ). | 2 | 1977–1978 |
In re the Probate of the Will of vom Saal
neutral
2 sentences1935(Matter of vom Saal, [1913] 82 Misc. 531 .) And the right of a party to legal redress if he is legally injured is jealously guarded by the courts. (3 Williston Cont. § 1725; Jarman Wills [6th ed. Eng.], p. 1550; Rhodes v. Muswell Hill Land Co., [1861] 29 Beav. 560; Billings v. Marshall Furnace Co., 210 Mich. 1 ; 177 N. W. 222 .) There is ample authority in the books for holding that whatever may be attempted to be done to violate the public policy of the State is void. 1922In Matter of Vom Saal, 82 Misc. | 2 | 1922–1935 |
Bryant v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1931(Bryant v. Thompson, 59 Hun, 545 ; Matter of Haight, 51 App. Div. 310, 313 ; Whiton v. Harmon, 54 Hun, 552, 555 ; Wright v. Mayer, 47 App. Div. 606 ; Cruger v. Phelps, 21 Misc. 252 ; O’Brien v. Barkley, 60 N. Y. 1922In Bryant v. Thompson, 59 Hun, 545, 549 , there was a gift over, but the court on the ground of public policy held the in terrorem clause void as it affected an infant daughter. | 2 | 1922–1931 |
New York Commercial Bank v. J. Realty F Rockaway, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2025The support for deeming the issue of whether the claim for the stream of income violated the in terrorem clause "foreclosed" rests on another "cf" citation ( id. ), this time to a case from this Court holding that, "under the peculiar circumstances of this case the failure to timely serve and file a notice of claim " against a municipality "was not a bar to the plaintiff's recovery" because the defendant never raised the notice issue during the entire course of the six-year litigation ( Salesian Socy. v Village of Ellenville , 41 NY2d 521, 522, 524-525 [1977] [emphasis added]). 2025The support for deeming the issue of whether the claim for the stream of income violated the in terrorem clause "foreclosed" rests on another "cf" citation ( id. ), this time to a case from this Court holding that, "under the peculiar circumstances of this case the failure to timely serve and file a notice of claim " against a municipality "was not a bar to the plaintiff's recovery" because the defendant never raised the notice issue during the entire course of the six-year litigation ( Salesian Socy. v Village of Ellenville , 41 NY2d 521, 522, 524-525 [1977] [emphasis added]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Matter of Berlin green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re the Estate of Vaughn
green
1 sentence2023Further, a person who has no interest in an estate lacks standing to object to an accounting of the estate ( see Matter of Berlin , 135 AD3d 746, 749 ; Matter of Vaughn , 267 AD2d 763, 763-764 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In re the Estate of Prevratil green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Rivera green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| In re the Estate of Martin green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| In re the Estate of Singer neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| In re the Estate of Muller neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| In re the Estate of Zorskas neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| In re the Estate of Martin neutral | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| In Re the Probate of the Will of Davis green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| In re the Estate of Lachman green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Williams v. . Jones green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| In re the Estate of Cronin green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| In re the Estate of Deilen green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| In re the Estate of Herle neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| In Re the Accounting of the Equitable Trust Co. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| In re the Estate of Stiehler green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Fell v. McCready green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Chiaverini v. Murray neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| In re the Estate of Blodgett green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| In re the Estate of Alexander green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| In re the Estate of Lang green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| In re the Probate of the Will of Baum neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| In re Briggs neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.