Facts
- The Surrogate's Court admitted Albert Aflalo’s Last Will and Testament to probate on July 10, 2023. [lines="17"]
- Simona Aflalo Baitner objected to the probate claiming a lack of validity regarding the will but did not explain her untimely objection. [lines="18"]
- Two witnesses testified that Aflalo requested them to witness his will and recognized his signature. [lines="20"]
- Aflalo's son, widow, and attorney affirmed that the signature on the will belonged to Aflalo. [lines="21"]
- Simona did not deny the signature’s authenticity but raised suspicions based on a report from a hired graphological expert. [lines="22"]
Issues
- Whether Simona Aflalo Baitner's objections to the probate were timely and supported by sufficient evidence. [lines="18"]
- Whether the Surrogate's Court erred in its discretion in admitting the will to probate despite Simona's objections. [lines="19"]
Holdings
- The court affirmed that Simona did not provide a valid explanation for her delayed objections or move to vacate her default. [lines="18"]
- The Surrogate's Court properly exercised its discretion in admitting Aflalo's will to probate, as sufficient evidence supported its validity. [lines="19"]
OPINION
| Matter of Aflalo |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 04736 |
| Decided on October 01, 2024 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: October 01, 2024
Before: Moulton, J.P., Mendez, Higgitt, O'Neill Levy, Michael, JJ.
Index No. 3950/19 Appeal No. 2648 Case No. 2023-03937
Arik Aflalo, Petioner-Respondent.
Simona Aflalo Baitner, Also Known as Simona Afalo Beitner Beitner, Petitioner-Appellant,
Creedon & Gill, P.C., Northport (Peter J. Creedon of counsel), for appellant.
Altschul & Altschul, New York (Mark M. Altschul of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Surrogate's Court, New York County (Hilary Gingold, S.), entered on or about July 10, 2023, which, inter alia, admitted the subject will to probate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Objectant did not provide Surrogate's Court with an explanation as to why she did not timely object to the probate petition and did not move to vacate her default.
In any event, the Surrogate's Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting decedent's Last Will and Testament dated May 14, 2019 to probate(see Matter of Halpern, 76 AD3d 429, 431 [1st Dept 2010], affd 16 NY3d 777 [2011]). The two attesting witnesses stated that decedent asked them to witness his will and they recognized his signature on the document. Decedent's son (petitioner), his widow, and his attorney stated that the signature on the will belonged to decedent.
Objectant, decedent's daughter, did not deny that the signature on the will belonged to decedent, and expressed only suspicions based on a report by a graphological expert she hired. However, the expert's opinion was based on a comparison of decedent's signature on a copy of the will to his purported signatures on a lease. Objectant provided no evidence that the signatures on the lease belonged to decedent.
We have considered objectant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: October 1, 2024