Virginia M. Crosby, Robert G. Martin, Sister Sienna Cameron, S.S.J., and Laverna T. Gallagher, Respondents-Respondents (Appeal No. 2.) v. << (1999)

 Surrogate's Court erred in granting respondents' motion for a directed verdict and denying the probate of decedent's will as the product of petitioner's undue influence.   The court reserved decision on respondents' motion for a directed verdict at the close of proof but thereafter set aside the jury verdict in favor of petitioner and granted respondents' motion.   It is undisputed that petitioner had a confidential relationship with decedent.   Although the burden of establishing undue influence lies with the objectants and does not shift, once the inference of undue influence was established, the beneficiary of the will had the burden to offer a reasonable explanation for the contested will (see, Matter of Putnam, 257 N.Y. 140, 177 N.E. 399;   Matter of Miller, 220 A.D.2d 591, 592, 632 N.Y.S.2d 817, lv. dismissed 87 N.Y.2d 896, 640 N.Y.S.2d 880, 663 N.E.2d 922;  Matter of Bach, 133 A.D.2d 455, 456, 519 N.Y.S.2d 670;  Matter of Collins, 124 A.D.2d 48, 54, 510 N.Y.S.2d 940).   Petitioner presented proof at trial that decedent was angry at respondents, the beneficiaries of her prior will, thereby raising an issue of fact that the jury resolved in her favor.   Because reasonable minds evaluating the evidence could differ (cf., Matter of Collins, supra), the court erred in granting respondents' motion.

Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and verdict reinstated.

MEMORANDUM: