Opinion
January 28, 1991
Appeal from the Surrogate's Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.).
Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellants personally.
On appeal the appellants maintain that the issue of whether the testatrix was aware of the nature and contents of her will should have been submitted to the jury. We disagree. The uncontroverted evidence adduced at trial establishes that the draftsman of the will, who had been the testatrix's attorney for over 40 years, fully explained the provisions of the will to her in Italian, which was her native language (see, Matter of Albarino, 45 Misc.2d 216, affd 23 A.D.2d 535, affd 16 N.Y.2d 927; Matter of Holly, 13 N.Y.2d 746; Matter of Simone, 53 Misc.2d 314). The record additionally establishes that the testatrix was aware of the extent of her property, and of the consequences of her disposition. Under these circumstances, the jury could not have rationally concluded that the testatrix was unaware of contents and nature of her will, and thus the court properly awarded judgment as a matter of law in favor of the proponent (see, Matter of Kumstar, 66 N.Y.2d 691, 693; Matter of Elco, 153 A.D.2d 860; Matter of Minasian, 149 A.D.2d 511).
We have reviewed the objectants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.