Justice James Pagones
In a contested probate proceeding, objectant sought dismissal of the probate petition arguing decedent's lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence by Smart, decedent's live-in home health aide and primary beneficiary, and that due execution requirements were not satisfied. The court found the will bore an attestation clause reciting due execution and signed by witnesses, raising a strong inference execution was according to the recitals. Also, as the drafting attorney supervised the will's execution, there was a presumption of regularity which objectant's submissions failed to overcome. Further, despite decedent's cognitive limitations, including being found an incapacitated person under Mental Hygiene Law Article 81, the court found decedent possessed "that degree of intelligence" to permit her to dispose of her estate by will. It noted decedent understood the nature and consequences of executing a will, ruling she had the requisite testamentary capacity. The court concluded the mere fact Smart was the sole legatee, or received the majority of decedent's assets, was not, alone, evidence of the exercise of undue influence. It found objectant's speculatory and conclusory assertions were unsupported by evidence, denying her motion entirely.
