Opinion
February 11, 1991
Appeal from the Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.).
Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant personally.
Upon our review of the extensive record herein, we find no basis to set aside the determination of the Surrogate. The record establishes that the testatrix, while despondent over the death of her husband, was aware of the natural objects of her bounty and the nature and extent of her property, and, as such, was possessed of testamentary capacity (see, Matter of Slade, 106 A.D.2d 914, 915; Matter of Flynn, 71 A.D.2d 891). Further, the testimony of the two subscribing witnesses more than adequately justifies the conclusion that the will was duly executed (see, Matter of Matteo, 134 A.D.2d 261). Finally, as the contestant failed to set forth any evidence to support her claims of fraud and undue influence, her allegations in this regard were properly rejected (see, Matter of Bush, 85 A.D.2d 887, 888; cf., Matter of Collins, 124 A.D.2d 48, 53-54). Brown, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.