Opinion
March 25, 1991
Appeal from the Surrogate's Court, Queens County (Laurino, S.).
Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the objectants personally.
We find no merit in the appellants' contention that the denial of a requested adjournment was improper. The decision to grant an adjournment is ordinarily committed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283-284). Since the handwriting expert, whom the objectants wished to call, was not competent to testify as to the decedent's mental capacity based merely on the decedent's signature (see, Daniels v Cummins, 66 Misc.2d 575, affd 44 A.D.2d 775; Cameron v Knapp, 137 Misc.2d 373), it cannot be said that the denial of the adjournment constituted an improvident exercise of discretion.
The evidence in the record is unrefuted that, on the day he executed his will, the testator was of sound mind and fully aware of the nature and consequences of his actions in disposing of his property. While it is true that he was aged, the objectants failed to submit any proof that the testator's mental faculties were impaired at that time. Therefore, the Surrogate properly awarded judgment as a matter of law against the objectants on the issue of testamentary capacity (see, Matter of Kumstar, 66 N.Y.2d 691; Matter of Hedges, 100 A.D.2d 586, 588).
We have examined the appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.