I recently blogged about a television executive beheading his wife in New York and noted that it would be interesting to see the role played by a slayer statute. In New York, however, unlike most states, the concept that a murderer cannot profit from his crime originated in a case, not a statute. In Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506 (1889), the testator’s grandson poisoned the testator in fear that the testator would change his will, which left the bulk of the testator’s estate to his grandson. The New York State Court of Appeals held that the grandson could not benefit from his crime, and his grandfather’s estate would pass to other beneficiaries.
Special thanks to Robert M. Harper (Attorney at Law, Uniondale, NY) for bringing this to my attention.
