You are here: / / Objections Based Upon Lack of Due Execution and Lack of Testamentary Capacity...

Objections Based Upon Lack of Due Execution and Lack of Testamentary Capacity Properly Dismissed/Relevant Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined the objections to probate based upon lack of due execution and lack of testamentary capacity were properly dismissed:

In support of that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the objection based on lack of due execution, the petitioner made a prima facie showing that the will was duly executed pursuant to EPTL 3-2.1. The deposition testimony of the attorney-drafter, who supervised the execution of the will and acted as an attesting witness, and of the second attesting witness, demonstrated that the statutory requirements for due execution were satisfied … . “Further, where, as here, the drafting attorney supervised the will’s execution, there is a presumption of regularity that the will was properly executed in all respects” … . “The attestation clause and self-proving affidavit accompanying the propounded will also give rise to a presumption of compliance with the statutory requirements” … . In opposition to the petitioner’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the objection based on lack of due execution, the objectant relied on hearsay evidence, which, by itself, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … .

The petitioner established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the objection based on lack of testamentary capacity by submitting the self-proving affidavit and the deposition testimony of the attesting witnesses. The petitioner’s submissions demonstrated that the decedent understood the nature and consequences of making the will, the nature and extent of her property, and the natural objects of her bounty … . In opposition, the objectant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the decedent lacked testamentary capacity … . Matter of Templeton, 2014 NY Slip Op 02445, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

You might also like
THREE-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN ROOF LEVELS WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTE WHEN IT WAS SENT, IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE VERSION OF THE STATUTE IN EFFECT WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Family Court Should Not Have Terminated Parental Rights (After an Alleged Violation of a Drug-Treatment Condition of a Suspended Judgment) Without Holding the Necessary Hearings
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE AND LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON.
FATHER, WHO LIVED IN FLORIDA, BROUGHT THIS PARENTAL ACCESS PETITION; FATHER INDICATED HE COULD NOT AFFORD TO TRAVEL TO NEW YORK; HE APPEARED SEVERAL TIMES VIRTUALLY; HE DID NOT APPEAR AT THE LAST COURT DATE, BUT HIS ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).
Security Guard and College Had No Duty to Protect Taxi Driver from Attack by Students on Campus—Plaintiff Was Not a Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Security Company and College
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.
Question of Fact Whether Hospital Had a Duty to Safeguard Plaintiff from Actions by Third Parties

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Waiver of Appeal Invalid Service of a Notice of Claim on the City Did Not Constitute the Service of ...