In this uncontested proceeding, the nominated executor, a friend of the decedent, seeks to probate an instrument dated February 20, 2001 and requests that no effect be given to certain handwritten alterations contained therein. Jurisdiction was obtained over two alleged cousins, unknown and whereabouts unknown distributees, the Attorney General, the Public Administrator and the bond surety, without any appearance in opposition. The guardian ad litem appointed to represent unknown and whereabouts unknown distributees consents to the application. The decedent died on December 12, 2017, at the age of 87. Her alleged distributees are five cousins, three of whose whereabouts are unknown. The propounded instrument was attorney-drafted and supervised, consists of eight typewritten pages, bears the signatures of three witnesses and contains an attestation clause, to which an affidavit of attesting witnesses is appended. Under the instrument, the petitioner and many family members and friends receive substantial up-front bequests of cash and the only surviving residuary beneficiaries are three friends and a cousin. On the lower half of the first page of the typewritten instrument is the notation “No Good 10/7/16″ hand printed in bold ink or marker. The original instrument remains legible. There is also a similar notation dated 10/6/16 over the signatures of the three attesting witnesses of the self-proving affidavit on page eight of the instrument. An affidavit from the attorney for the petitioner states that: (1) he was retained by the decedent in 2011 to pursue a claim against a local supermarket; (2) in 2016, the decedent stated that she wished to change certain testamentary bequests and directed him to prepare a new will, power of attorney and health care proxy and Living Will; (3) accordingly, counsel prepared those documents and delivered them to the decedent; and (4) the decedent kept changing the testamentary percentages and never executed the new will. The guardian ad litem reports that he spoke to the three attesting witnesses, who confirmed that the will was duly executed by the decedent at the office that they then shared with the attorney draftsman, who is now deceased. Although he notes the handwritten alterations on pages one and eight of the instrument, the guardian concludes that as the estate is entirely bequeathed to the decedent’s family and long time friends, he finds no basis to object to the validity of the original propounded instrument other than the attempted, ineffective revocations by the decedent. The proof establishes that the handwritten alterations to pages one and eight of the instrument occurred after its execution, do not comply with the statutory formalities and cannot be given testamentary effect (see EPTL 3-4.1; Matter of Martinez, NYLJ, Dec. 31, 2007 at 37, col 4 [Sur Ct, Bronx County 2007]). The court is satisfied that the testator executed the will dated February 20, 2001 in its original form in compliance with the statutory requirements, and that, at the time of execution, the testator was competent to make a will and was free from restraint. Accordingly, the will is admitted to probate in its original, unaltered form (see EPTL 3-2.1, SCPA 1408), and the preliminary letters that issued to the petitioner are hereby revoked. Decree signed.
