Opinion
July 20, 1992
Appeal from the Surrogate's Court, Westchester County (Brewster, S.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.
"A party seeking to set aside a probate decree entered upon his consent must show that such consent was obtained by fraud or overreaching (Matter of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143), was the product of misrepresentation or misconduct (Matter of Westberg, 254 App. Div. 320), or that newly-discovered evidence, clerical error or other sufficient cause justifies the reopening of the decree (Matter of Hinderson, 4 Misc.2d 559, affd 2 A.D.2d 682; 1A Warren's Heaton, Surrogate Counts, § 121)" (Matter of Leeper, 53 A.D.2d 1054, 1055). Here, the appellant read the waiver and consent to probate before signing it, and he "therefore is chargeable with knowledge of its contents and effect" (Matter of Boyle, 107 A.D.2d 807, 808). The appellant's unsubstantiated and conclusory allegations that he did not understand the significance of the waiver and consent, and that he was suffering from bereavement and unspecified medical problems, do not provide a sufficient basis for vacatur of the probate decree (see, Matter of Boyle, supra; Matter of Leeper, supra).
We have examined the appellant's remaining contentions, and find that they are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.