In re the Estate of Chiurazzi
In a contested probate proceeding, the objectants appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Putnam County (Rooney, S.), dated May 9, 2001, which, after a nonjury trial, admitted the decedent’s will to probate.
Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the objectants personally.
The determination of the Surrogate, who presided at the trial and heard all of the testimony, is entitled to great weight in this case, which hinged on the credibility of the witnesses (see Matter of Margolis,
Although evidence was presented at trial that the decedent suffered from periods of confusion, the proponent established that the decedent was aware of the natural objects of her bounty, and the nature and extent of her property at the time the will was executed. Therefore, she possessed testamentary capacity (see Matter of Kumstar,
Moreover, there was no evidence that the proponent exercised influence which amounted to “moral coercion * * * which, by importunity which could not be resisted, constrained the [decedent] to do that which was against [her] free will and desire but which [she] was unable to refuse or too weak to resist” (Children’s Aid Socy. of N.Y. v Loveridge,
The objectants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., O’Brien, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.