In re the Estate of Esberg
In a contested probate proceeding, the objectants appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, J.) dated June 24, 1993, which, inter alia, granted the proponent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing their objections to probate and admitted to probate the will of Edna M. Esberg.
Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs.
The proponent in this proceeding is the attorney-draftsman of a will executed by the decedent, Edna M. Esberg, on November 30, 1988. The objectants, the daughter and the elder grandson of the decedent, raise four objections to the will: undue execution, lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and fraud.
The record shows that the first objection lacks merit. The will was duly executed pursuant to the formal requirements of execution and attestation set forth in the applicable statute (see, EPTL 3-2.1). Moreover, when, as here, the attorney-draftsman supervised the will’s execution, there is a presumption of regularity that the will was properly executed in all respects (see, e.g., Matter of Kindberg,
The record also shows that, at all relevant times including the moment of the will’s execution (see, e.g., Children’s Aid Socy. v Loveridge,
Finally, the objectants failed to establish their claims of fraud and undue influence. They submitted only conclusory and speculative evidence that the proponent and his wife, the attesting witnesses to the will, insinuated themselves into the decedent’s life for the sinister purpose of procuring the proponent’s nomination as the executor and trustee of the will. Furthermore, the proponent fully disclosed the financial consequences of this arrangement to the decedent (see, Matter of Atterbury,