In In re Folsom's Will, 142 N.Y.S.2d 144, the will provided that if any beneficiary attempted to set aside, interfere with, or invalidate any of the provisions of the will, the beneficiary forfeited his or her right to receive any portion of the estate. The nominated executor was also a beneficiary under the will. He brought a construction proceeding to determine whether he forfeited his bequest if he renounced his right to compensation under the will to obtain statutory commissions. The court held that, if the in terrorem clause was intended to apply to the executor's renunciation of compensation, it was invalid as contrary to public policy (id. at 147). The Court held that to the extent the in terrorem clause pertained to the executor's renunciation of the compensation provided in the will, it was invalid as contrary to public policy (id. at 147). However, the court stated that it would have reached a different result if the will provided for an alternate fiduciary. "Although research has disclosed no case involving the application of an 'in terrorem clause to the right of a person to serve as a fiduciary despite the renunciation of specific compensation, the failure to name an alternate fiduciary is regarded as analogous to the failure to provide for a gift over in case of forfeiture. The general rule is that 'in terrorem' clauses are unenforceable unless they provide for a gift over in case of a breach." (id.) .