Sabatelli v. Sabatelli (In re Sabatelli), 2016–05762
| Citation | 161 A.D.3d 872,76 N.Y.S.3d 207 |
| Decision Date | 09 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | File No. 1723/13,2016–06108,2016–05762 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF Mary T. SABATELLI, etc., deceased. Christina Sabatelli, et al., respondents; v. Ralph Sabatelli, et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
161 A.D.3d 872
76 N.Y.S.3d 207
In the MATTER OF Mary T. SABATELLI, etc., deceased.
Christina Sabatelli, et al., respondents;
v.
Ralph Sabatelli, et al., appellants.
2016–05762
2016–06108
File No. 1723/13
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—December 15, 2017
May 9, 2018
Seth Rubenstein, P.C., Brooklyn, NY, for appellant Ralph Sabatelli.
Jeffrey Weinstein, P.C., New York, NY, for appellant Barbara Sabatelli.
Walsh & Roth, LLP, West Babylon, N.Y. (David I. Roth of counsel), for respondents Christina Sabatelli and Felicia Ann Barden.
Schupbach, Williams & Pavone, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Paul R. Williams of counsel), for respondent Rosemarie Sabatelli.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant Ralph Sabatelli appeals, and the objectant Barbara Sabatelli separately appeals, from (1) an order of the Surrogate's Court, Suffolk County (John M. Czygier, Jr., S.), entered April 13, 2016, which granted the motion of the petitioner Rosemarie Sabatelli for summary judgment dismissing the objections to probate of the last will and testament of the decedent, and (2) a decree of the same court entered May 25, 2016, which, upon the order, admitted the will to probate.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the decree is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the petitioners appearing separately and filing separate briefs, payable by the objectants personally.
The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the decree (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 ). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the decree (see CPLR 5501[a][1] ).
On January 25, 2012, Mary T. Sabatelli (hereinafter the decedent) executed her
last will and testament under the supervision of an attorney. The will bequeathed the sum of $250 to each of the decedent's three adopted children, who were previously her stepchildren. Further, the will provided that the residuary estate would be shared equally among the decedent's three biological children, and it designated the three biological children as co-executors. Following the decedent's death, her biological children (hereinafter collectively the petitioners) commenced this proceeding to admit the will to probate, and two of her adopted children (hereinafter together the objectants) filed objections to probate.
After discovery was completed, the petitioner Rosemarie Sabatelli (hereinafter Rosemarie) moved for summary judgment dismissing the objections to probate. In an order entered April 13, 2016, the Surrogate's Court granted Rosemarie's motion. In a decree entered May 25, 2016, the court, upon the order, admitted the will to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blasi v. Blasi (In re Martinico)
...the will's execution, there is a presumption of regularity that the will was properly executed in all respects" ( Matter of Sabatelli, 161 A.D.3d 872, 873–874, 76 N.Y.S.3d 207 ; see Matter of Templeton, 116 A.D.3d 781, 781, 983 N.Y.S.2d 610 ; Matter of Farrell, 84 A.D.3d 1374, 1374, 923 N.Y......
-
In re Probate Proceeding, Will of Sook Li
...being disposed, and knows the natural objects of his or her bounty (see Matter of Kumstar, 66 N.Y.2d 691, 692 [1985]; Matter of Sabatelli, 161 A.D.3d 872 at 874). question of testamentary capacity concerns a person's mental condition at the time of the execution of the will; evidence relati......
-
Michels v. Michels (In re Michels)
...95 N.Y.S.3d 286 ; see EPTL 3–2.1[a] ; Matter of Collins, 60 N.Y.2d 466, 468, 470 N.Y.S.2d 338, 458 N.E.2d 797 ; Matter of Sabatelli, 161 A.D.3d 872, 873, 76 N.Y.S.3d 207 ). "Where the will is drafted by an attorney and the drafting attorney supervises the will's execution, there is a presum......
-
Kart v. Christie (In re Christie)
...A.D.3d 858, 859, 979 N.Y.S.2d 403 ; see Matter of Kumstar, 66 N.Y.2d 691, 692, 496 N.Y.S.2d 414, 487 N.E.2d 271 ; Matter of Sabatelli, 161 A.D.3d at 874, 76 N.Y.S.3d 207 ). In opposition, the objectant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Matter of Rottkamp, 95 A.D.3d at 1339, 945 N......