Here, Costello established, prima facie, that the decedent possessed testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed by submitting the self-proving affidavit of the attesting witnesses and the deposition testimony of the drafting attorney (see Matter of Robbins, 206 A.D.3d at 740, 167 N.Y.S.3d 832; Matter of Sabatelli, 161 A.D.3d 872, 874, 76 N.Y.S.3d 207). In opposition, Giordano failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Matter of Sundmacher, 192 A.D.3d 898, 899, 144 N.Y.S.3d 742). Further, the Surrogate’s Court properly granted that branch of Costello’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the objection alleging undue influence.

Here, Costello established, prima facie, that the decedent possessed testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed by submitting the self-proving affidavit of the attesting witnesses and the deposition testimony of the drafting attorney (see Matter of Robbins, 206 A.D.3d at 740; Matter of Sabatelli, 161 A.D.3d 872, 874). In opposition, Giordano failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Matter of Sundmacher, 192 A.D.3d 898, 899).

The testator must also at some time during the execution ceremony declare that the instrument being signed is his or her Will (EPTL 3-2.1 [a] [3]). The proponent of the Will bears the burden of proving due execution of the Will and testamentary capacity (see e.g. Matter of Kumstar, 66 N.Y.2d 691, 692 [1985]; see also Matter of Sundmacher, 192 A.D.3d 898, 898 [2021]), whereas the burden of proof on the issues of fraud and undue influence rests on the party who asserts such claims (see e.g. Matter of Walther, 6 N.Y.2d 49, 54 [1959]; see also Matter of Kotsones, 37 N.Y.3d 1154 [2022], aff'g 185 A.D.3d 1173 [2020] and Matter of Mele, 113 A.D.3d 858, 860 [2014]). The issue before this Court is whether Olah has established her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the objections and admitting the May Will to probate, and, if so, (1) whether Antal has raised any material issue of fact which would require a trial (see Matter of Bordell, 150 A.D.3d 1446, 1446 [2017]; see also Matter of Pollock, 64 N.Y.2d 1156, 1157 [1985]), or (2) whether Antal has established that the May Will should be denied probate.

The testator must also at some time during the execution ceremony declare that the instrument being signed is their Will (EPTL 3-2.1 [a] [3]). The proponent of the Will bears the burden of proving due execution of the Will and testamentary capacity (see e.g. Matter of Kumstar, 66 N.Y.2d 691, 692 [1985]; see also Matter of Sundmacher, 192 A.D.3d 898 [2021]), whereas the burden of proof on the issues of fraud and undue influence rests on the party who asserts such claims (see e.g. Matter of Walther, 6 N.Y.2d 49, 54 [1959]; see also Matter of Mele, 113 A.D.3d 858, 860 [2014]). The issue before this Court is whether Bialkowski has established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the objections and admitting the Will to probate, and, if so, whether the objectants have raised any material issue of fact which would require a trial (see Matter of Bordell, 150 A.D.3d 1446, 1446 [2017]; see also Matter of Pollock, 64 N.Y.2d 1156 [1985]).