ESTATE OF JOHN O. ALBERT, A/K/A JOHN OSWALD NATHANIEL ALBERT Deceased

ESTATE OF JOHN O. ALBERT, A/K/A JOHN OSWALD NATHANIEL ALBERT Deceased. (1689/12) — In this uncontested probate proceeding, Jennifer Miller-Albert (the petitioner) filed a petition with this Court seeking to probate a written instrument, dated February 10, 2012 (the propounded instrument), which purports to be the last will and testament of John O. Albert, a/k/a John Oswald Nathaniel Albert (the decedent). The issue before the court is whether decedent's signature on the propounded instrument, made by fingerprint, satisfies the execution requirements of EPTL §3-2.1.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

ESTATE OF JOHN O. ALBERT, A/K/A JOHN OSWALD NATHANIEL ALBERT Deceased. (1689/12) — In this uncontested probate proceeding, Jennifer Miller-Albert (the petitioner) filed a petition with this Court seeking to probate a written instrument, dated February 10, 2012 (the propounded instrument), which purports to be the last will and testament of John O. Albert, a/k/a John Oswald Nathaniel Albert (the decedent). The issue before the court is whether decedent’s signature on the propounded instrument, made by fingerprint, satisfies the execution requirements of EPTL §3-2.1.

To be admitted for probate, a will must be duly executed in conformance with the requirements of EPTL §3-2.1. The decedent must sign the will at the end thereof (EPTL §3-2.1). A wide variety of marks and lines have long been accepted as signatures sufficient to execute a will, including crossmarks (or “X”), initials, phrases, and fingerprints (see Matter of Kenneally, 139 Misc2d 198, 199 [Sur Ct Nassau County 1988]; Matter of Arcowsky, 171 Misc 41[Sur Ct Kings County 1939]; Matter of Romaniw, 163 Misc 481 [Sur Ct Westchester County 1937]; Matter of Golicki, 116 Misc 100, 101-02 [Sur Ct Herkimer County 1921]; Matter of Irving, 153 AD 728 [1st Dept 1912], affd 207 NY 765); Jackson v. Jackson, 39 NY 153, 159 [1868]). Courts have held that signature by fingerprint is more individual, reliable, and effective than one made by a mere cross mark, which had long been uniformly upheld (Arcowsky, 171 Misc at 42; Romaniw, 163 Misc at 490, citing e.g. Jackson, 39 NY at 159, Golicki, 116 Misc at 100-02). The central inquiry is whether “such mark or designation was intended by the affixing party to serve as his or her signature” (William J. Jenack Estate Appraisers & Auctioneers, Inc. v. Rabizadeh, 99AD3d 270, 277 [2d Dept 2012], citing General Construction Law §46).

ESTATE OF JOHN O. ALBERT, A/K/A JOHN OSWALD NATHANIEL ALBERT Deceased

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal