IN RE: Alicia KNAPP also known as Alicia Castrucci Knapp (2023)

Order, Surrogate's Court, New York County (Rita Mella, S.), entered September 9, 2022, which denied appellant Pierre Iagnocco's motion to withdraw his waiver and consent to probate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to set aside the waiver and consent to probate decedent's January 4, 2017 will because appellant presented insufficient evidence of good cause, fraud, collusion, overreaching, material misrepresentations, misconduct by respondent, or newly discovered evidence (see Matter of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143, 149–150, 324 N.Y.S.2d 36, 272 N.E.2d 543 [1971];  Matter of Coccia, 59 A.D.3d 716, 716, 874 N.Y.S.2d 224 [2d Dept. 2009]).  In the cover letter attached to the waiver and consent form, appellant was informed of the import of the waiver and advised to consult an attorney if he deemed it necessary.  Admittedly, he consulted counsel before signing.  The waiver and consent form sent to appellant clearly indicated that respondent sought to probate a copy of the January 4, 2017 will, the original of which was later located (see Matter of Coccia, 59 A.D.3d at 717, 874 N.Y.S.2d 224).

Appellant also failed to demonstrate that his application was meritorious and that he had a reasonable probability of success (see Matter of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d at 150, 324 N.Y.S.2d 36, 272 N.E.2d 543;  Matter of Weiss, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 31441(U), 2017 WL 3012247 [Sur. Ct., New York County 2017]).  Insufficient evidence was presented rebutting the presumption of regularity that the will was properly executed, given that the attorney who drafted it and supervised its execution stated that the required procedure was followed (see Matter of Falk, 47 A.D.3d 21, 26, 845 N.Y.S.2d 287 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 702, 854 N.Y.S.2d 103, 883 N.E.2d 1010 [2008]);  and two disinterested witnesses attested that decedent signed the will in their presence (see Matter of Halpern, 76 A.D.3d 429, 431–432, 906 N.Y.S.2d 253 [1st Dept. 2010], affd 16 N.Y.3d 777, 919 N.Y.S.2d 503, 944 N.E.2d 1142 [2011]).

We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.