Opinion
08-09-2017
In the Matter of SHUI YUK MAK CHIN, also known as Shui Yuk Mak, also known as Shui Mak, also known as Mak Shui Yuk, deceased. Jade Joan Hon, respondent; Tin Yat Chin, appellant.
Tin Yat Chin, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se. Augustine & Eberle LLP, New York, NY (Mark J. Eberle of counsel), for respondent.
Tin Yat Chin, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.
Augustine & Eberle LLP, New York, NY (Mark J. Eberle of counsel), for respondent.
In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate's Court, Queens County (Kelly, S.), dated March 10, 2015, as, upon an order of the same court dated January 22, 2015, granting the petitioner's motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections to probate, admitted the last will and testament of the decedent to probate.
ORDERED that the notice of appeal from the order dated January 22, 2015, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the decree (see CPLR 5520 [c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The petitioner made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the objections to the probate of the decedent's will by demonstrating that the will was duly executed, the decedent had testamentary capacity, and no undue influence or fraud was exercised on the decedent (see Matter of Capuano, 93 A.D.3d 666, 668, 939 N.Y.S.2d 553 ; Matter of Engelhardt, 88 A.D.3d 997, 931 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; Matter of Klingman, 60 A.D.3d 949, 950, 875 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; Matter of Moskoff, 41 A.D.3d 481, 482, 836 N.Y.S.2d 708 ). In opposition, the objectant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Matter of West, 147 A.D.3d 592, 593, 46 N.Y.S.3d 865 ; Matter of Mele, 113 A.D.3d 858, 860–861, 979 N.Y.S.2d 403 ; Matter of DiDomenico, 101 A.D.3d 998, 1000, 956 N.Y.S.2d 122 ; Matter of Zirinsky, 43 A.D.3d 946, 948, 841 N.Y.S.2d 637 ).
The objectant's contention that a bequest in the will to the objectant's former wife should be invalidated was properly rejected by the Surrogate's Court (see EPTL 3–4.1[a] ; Matter of Coffed, 46 N.Y.2d 514, 519, 414 N.Y.S.2d 893, 387 N.E.2d 1209 ; Matter of North, 32 A.D.2d 862, 863, 301 N.Y.S.2d 325 ).
Accordingly, the Surrogate's Court properly granted the petitioner's motion for summary judgment.
MASTRO, J.P., DILLON, COHEN and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.