The Appellate Division of NYS Supreme Court, Fourth Department reinstated a lawsuit challenging the validity of a will after the case was dismissed. Monroe County Surrogate’s Court Judge Christopher S. Ciaccio (“Ciaccio”) issued an order and decree granting a motion filed by Mayra Rodriguez (“Executor”) for summary judgment, dismissed all will objections, and admitted to probate the will of Alejandro Rodriguez.
The appellate court unanimously reversed Ciaccio’s order and decree and denied the Executor’s motion to dismiss the will contest objections, ruling that:
- SUMMARY JUDGMENT: The objectants were correct that Surrogate’s Court erred in granting the motion as the Executor failed to meet her initial burden on the motion. Summary judgment is rare in a contested probate proceeding, and is inappropriate in any case where there are material issues of fact. Because Executor merely pointed to gaps in objectants’ potential proof at trial, she failed to meet her initial burden. Even assuming that she met her initial burden on the motion, objectants’ submissions in opposition to the motion raised triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment.
- TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the evidence submitted by the Executor in support of her motion raises triable issues of fact with respect to decedent’s testamentary, his testamentary intent, and whether the will was the product of fraud or undue influence without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing papers
- TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY: With respect to decedent’s testamentary capacity and intent, the Surrogate correctly noted that “a will is presumed to have been properly executed where . . . the execution was supervised by the attorney who drafted the will.” Regardless, other evidence submitted by the Executor, including sworn testimony and medical records, raised triable issues of fact related to the decedent’s intent and his testamentary capacity. That evidence required the denial of the motion. Ciaccio erred in resolving those inconsistencies by crediting the testimony of the attorneys who prepared and supervised the execution of the will.
- FRAUD & UNDUE INFLUENCE: On the question of whether the will was the product of fraud or undue influence, the Executor bore the burden of establishing the absence of any material fact requiring trial. A party does not carry its burden in moving for summary judgment by pointing to gaps in its opponent’s proof.
If you are considering contesting a will in New York, the legal team at Friedman & Ranzenhofer, PC is here to help. Our experienced attorneys have a deep understanding of New York’s probate laws and are dedicated to providing compassionate and effective legal representation. We will work tirelessly to protect your rights and ensure that your voice is heard. Call or text Friedman & Ranzenhofer, PC today at (585) 484-7432 to schedule a consultation and take the first step toward resolving your will contest. Let us guide you through this challenging process and help you achieve the best possible outcome.