"Whether to dismiss a party's objections and admit the challenged will to probate is a matter committed to the sound discretion of Surrogate's Court and, absent an abuse of that discretion, the court's decision will not be disturbed" (Matter of Dralle, 192 A.D.3d 1239, 1240 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Shapiro, 100 A.D.3d 1242, 1243 [3d Dept 2012]). "Summary judgment is rare in a contested probate proceeding" (Matter of Shapiro, 65 A.D.3d 790, 791 [3d Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Castiglione, 40 A.D.3d 1227, 1229 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 806 [2007]; Matter of Leach, 3 A.D.3d 763, 764 [3d Dept 2004]) and where, as here, "there is conflicting evidence or the possibility of drawing conflicting inferences from undisputed evidence," summary judgment is inappropriate (Matter of Kumstar, 66 N.Y.2d 691, 692 [1985]; see Matter of Paigo, 53 A.D.3d 836, 839 [3d Dept 2008]; Matter of Williams, 13 A.D.3d 954, 955 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 705 [2005]).

Surrogate's Court granted the motion, and this appeal by respondent ensued. "Whether to dismiss a party's objections and admit the challenged will to probate is a matter committed to the sound discretion of Surrogate's Court and, absent an abuse of that discretion, the court's decision will not be disturbed" ( Matter of Dralle, 192 A.D.3d 1239, 1240, 143 N.Y.S.3d 699 [3d Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; seeMatter of Shapiro, 100 A.D.3d 1242, 1243, 954 N.Y.S.2d 656 [3d Dept. 2012] ). "Summary judgment is rare in a contested probate proceeding" ( Matter of Shapiro, 65 A.D.3d 790, 791, 883 N.Y.S.2d 817 [3d Dept. 2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; seeMatter of Castiglione, 40 A.D.3d 1227, 1229, 837 N.Y.S.2d 360 [3d Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 806, 842 N.Y.S.2d 782, 874 N.E.2d 749 [2007] ; Matter of Leach, 3 A.D.3d 763, 764, 772 N.Y.S.2d 100 [3d Dept. 2004] ) and where, as here, "there is conflicting evidence or the possibility of drawing conflicting inferences from undisputed evidence," summary judgment is inappropriate ( Matter of Kumstar, 66 N.Y.2d 691, 692, 496 N.Y.S.2d 414, 487 N.E.2d 271 [1985] ; seeMatter of Paigo, 53 A.D.3d 836, 839, 863 N.Y.S.2d 508 [3d Dept. 2008] ; Matter of Williams, 13 A.D.3d 954, 955, 787 N.Y.S.2d 444 [3d Dept. 2004], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 705, 801 N.Y.S.2d 2, 834 N.E.2d

. "[T]he appropriate inquiry is whether ... decedent was lucid and rational at the time the will was made" ( Matter of Walker, 80 A.D.3d 865, 866, 914 N.Y.S.2d 379 [3d Dept. 2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 711, 2011 WL 1584878 [2011] ; accordMatter of Burrows, 203 A.D.3d 1699, 1700, 166 N.Y.S.3d 71 [4th Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 903, 2022 WL 16984432 [2022] ; seeMatter of Dralle, 192 A.D.3d 1239, 1241, 143 N.Y.S.3d 699 [3d Dept. 2021] ), and "[a] presumption of testamentary capacity is created when an attorney drafts a will and supervises its execution" ( Matter of Nofal, 35 A.D.3d 1132, 1134, 826 N.Y.S.2d 828 [3d Dept. 2006] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]). The challenged will contains a clause averring that decedent was of "sound mind and memory" and bequeaths the entirety of his estate to petitioner in the event she survived decedent, naming his nephew as a second beneficiary if she did not.

[3–5] We briefly add that, were we to address the merits, we would affirm. "While rare, summary judgment in a contested probate proceeding is appropriate where a petitioner establishes a prima facie case for probate and the objectant does not raise any factual issues regarding testamentary capacity, execution of the will, undue influence or fraud" (Matter of Vosilla, 121 A.D.3d 1489, 1490, 996 N.Y.S.2d 741 [3d Dept. 2014] [citations omitted]; accord Matter of Dralle, 192 A.D.3d 1239, 1240, 143 N.Y.S.3d 699 [3d Dept. 2021]). Petitioner came forward with a variety of proof – including the will with the self-executing affidavit of the two witnesses, the SCPA 1404 testimony of those witnesses, and petitioner’s own testimony and affidavits – meeting his initial burden in all respects.

(Matter of Vosilla, 121 A.D.3d 1489, 1490 [3d Dept 2014] [citations omitted]; accord Matter of Dralle, 192 A.D.3d 1239, 1240 [3d Dept 2021]).

Objectants' contention that "something more" than formal execution was required due to decedent's infirmities is also without merit. The record is silent as to any infirmities by decedent which would affect execution ( Rollwagen v. Rollwagen, 63 N.Y. 504, 517 [1876] ; see Matter of Creekmore's, 1 N.Y.2d 284, 152 N.Y.S.2d 449, 135 N.E.2d 193 [1956] ; Matter of Dralle, 192 A.D.3d 1239, 1242, 143 N.Y.S.3d 699 [3d Dept. 2021] ). As stated by the court, "objectants ... submitted sufficient evidence to raise a question as to whether [petitioner] could have and did assume such control of decedent's affairs during decedent's hospitalization and rehabilitation that she could be considered to be in a confidential relationship with her mother at the time the propounded instrument was executed."

Objectants' contention that "something more" than formal execution was required due to decedent's infirmities is also without merit. The record is silent as to any infirmities by decedent which would affect execution (Rollwagen v Rollwagen, 63 NY 504, 517 [1876]; see Matter of Creekmore, 1 N.Y.2d 284 [1956]; Matter of Dralle, 192 A.D.3d 1239, 1242 [3d Dept 2021]).

The testimonial evidence, however, is that decedent responded when the dispositive provisions of the will were read to her and when asked questions directly before signing. As noted in the discussion of capacity, allegations of decedent's hearing and sight deficits are purely speculative on this record and are supported only by Melissa's statement that decedent was "hard of hearing" and a "self-report" by decedent of needing to use a magnifying glass to read very small print (Matter of Dralle, 192 A.D.3d 1239, 1242 [3d Dept 2021] [proof of decedent's poor vision insufficient to overcome the presumption of due execution or raise questions of fact as to whether she was unable to read the will or understand its terms]). Furthermore, the medical records for March 4, 2015 from the rehabilitation center state that no "deaf and hard of hearing services" were needed by decedent at that time.