Opinion
2430
December 3, 2002.
Order, Surrogate's Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about May 2, 2001, which granted petitioner executors' motion to dismiss appellant's objections to their accounting, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Michael F. Maschio, for PEtitioners-Respondents.
Robert Canova, for Objectant-appellant. Pro S.E.
Allan E. Kirstein, for Guardian Ad Litem.
WILLIAMS, P.J., NARDELLI, ELLERIN, RUBIN, MARLOW, JJ.
The Surrogate properly concluded that the testator's intention to exclude appellant from sharing in the residuary estate could be discerned from the four corners of the will (see Matter of Thall, 18 N.Y.2d 186, 192; Matter of Fabbri, 2 N.Y.2d 236, 240) and that consideration of extrinsic evidence was thus neither necessary nor appropriate (see Matter of McClelland, 198 A.D.2d 115) . Article Second of the will expressly states that no provision has been made for appellant in Article Seventh, which disposes of the residuary estate, since the testator had not had any contact with appellant, his son, in many years and did not know his whereabouts. It would not be consonant with these clearly stated and explained intentions to read Article Seventh of the will as creating a trust or otherwise providing for appellant.
We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.