NY appeals court revives contested will probate case

Listen to this article

A state appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit challenging the validity of a will after the case was dismissed by a lower court.

In November 2023, Monroe County Surrogate’s Court Judge Christopher S. Ciaccio issued an order and decree granting a motion filed by Mayra Rodriguez for summary judgment, dismissed any objections, and admitted to probate the will of Alejandro Rodriguez.

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed Ciaccio’s order and decree and denied the motion.

“We agree with objectants that Surrogate’s Court erred in granting the motion inasmuch as petitioner failed to meet her initial burden on the motion,” the Fourth Department wrote.

Summary judgment is rare in a contested probate proceeding, and is inappropriate in any case where there are material issues of fact, the Fourth Department wrote.

“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, as we are required to do, we conclude that the evidence submitted by petitioner in support of her motion raises triable issues of fact with respect to decedent’s testamentary capacity, his testamentary intent, and whether the will was the product of fraud or undue influence, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing papers,” the panel wrote.

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,” the court wrote.

Regardless, other evidence submitted by Rodriguez, 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,” the court wrote.

On the question of whether the will was the product of fraud or undue influence, Rodriguez bore the burden of establishing the absence of any material fact requiring trial and, “as we have repeatedly stated in other contexts, a party does not carry its burden in moving for summary judgment by pointing to gaps in its opponent’s proof,” the court wrote.

Because Rodriguez merely pointed to gaps in objectants’ potential proof at trial, she failed to meet her initial burden, according to the decision.

“Even assuming … that Rodriguez met her initial burden on the motion, we conclude that objectants’ submissions in opposition to the motion raised triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment,” the court ruled.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035