Offered for probate is an instrument dated July 12,2013 which Nathaniel Feller (“Feller”) and Rabbi Yosef Singer (“Singer”), among others, have objected to. It appears from the papers submitted herein that decedent allegedly executed four instruments purported to be his last will and testament. The first, dated June 17, 2008, has not been filed with the court but has been asserted by Feller and Singer as being executed by decedent. The other three instruments have been filed with the court. The earliest of these is an instrument dated April 12, 2013 which nominated Feller and Singer as co-executors. Next is an instrument dated April 18, 2013 which omits Feller and Singer as executors and names petitioner, who was also the attorney draftsperson, as executor. Last in time is the document offered for probate dated July 12, 2013, which nominates petitioner and Mordechai Freund, as co-executors. Although Feller and Singer have filed objections, they are neither distributees nor beneficiaries in any of the instruments referred to above. Instead, it appears their only interest in this matter stems from their nomination as co-executors. Accordingly, petitioner now moves to dismiss the objections filed by Feller and Singer asserting that they lack standing to object to the probate of the proffered instrument. SCPA §1410, in relevant part, provides: “any person whose interest in property or in the estate of the testator would be adversely affected by the admission of the will to probate may file objections to the probate of the will or any portion thereof except that one whose only financial interest would be in the commissions to which he would have been entitled if his appointment as fiduciary were not revoked by a later instrument shall not be entitled to file objections to the probate of such instrument unless authorized by the court for good cause shown.” Evidence of fraud, undue influence, or severe lack of capacity are factors in determining whether a displaced nominated fiduciary has standing to object the probate of the will (Matter of Melcher, 54 AD2d 830). Initially, the court notes that the subject objections are procedurally defective as Feller and Singer did not receive authorization to file same upon showing of good cause (In re Estate of Marks, 142 Misc. 2d 733). Indeed it appears they merely co-signed as objectants with Yeshiva Gedolah, Tefereth Shmuel, and Rabbinical Seminary of America, which are charitable beneficiaries under the April 12, 2013 instrument. Even if the court were to ignore this procedural irregularity, there has not been a showing of good cause which would warrant the court to grant such relief (SCPA §1410; Matter of Hatzisfefanou, 77 Misc. 2d 594). Feller and Singer claim that they are interested parties to this proceeding because “they were named as executors in the first two wills.” As it appears their only interest in the estate was in the commissions they would have been entitled to if their appointments as executors had not been revoked by subsequent wills, Feller and Singer have failed to establish that their objections were prompted solely by the obligation to see that the decedent’s wishes were not frustrated (See. Matter of Lerman, 238 AD2d 341; Matter of Peckolick, 167 Misc. 2d 597; In re Estate of Eshaghian, 7 AD 3d 707). Furthermore, Feller and Singer failed to submit any evidence to the contrary in opposition to this motion. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the objections of Feller and Singer is granted. This is the decision and order of the court. Dated: August 15, 2019
