The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers 41-53 and 57-75 were read on this motion for summary judgment. DECISION AND ORDER In this contested administration proceeding, Jessica Leslie Barrett (Jessica), filed a petition dated March 23, 2021, seeking Letters of Administration in the estate of Winsome Mae Barrett aka Winsome Barret (Decedent) as the Decedent’s purported sole distributee. Ann Barrett (Ann), who claims she is the Decedent’s other daughter, also filed an administration petition seeking Letters of Co-Administration to issue to her and the Decedent’s sister, Heather Hutchinson (Heather).1 Jessica now moves for summary judgment granting her petition. She alleges that Ann is not a distributee of the Decedent, and that Jessica is the Decedent’s only child. Ann opposes the motion and avers that both she and Jessica are children of the Decedent. In support of her motion, Jessica submits a copy of the Decedent’s birth certificate and a copy of Ann’s birth certificate. Jessica argues that three discrepancies on the Decedent’s birth certificate, in relation to Ann’s birth certificate, establish as a matter of law that the Decedent is not Ann’s mother. First, Jessica avers that the Decedent’s name as set forth on the Decedent’s birth certificate is Winsome Mae Barrett; whereas the name of Ann’s mother as set forth on Ann’s birth certificate is Winsome Barrett. Second, Jessica asserts that Ann’s birth certificate states that Ann’s mother was born in the Parish of Hanover, whereas the Decedent’s birth certificate states that Decedent was born in the Parish of St. James. Third, Jessica avers that Decedent’s birth certificate states that Decedent’s date of birth is February 22, 1950. However, Ann’s birth certificate states that Decedent’s date of birth is unknown. Ann opposes the motion and provides several affidavits refuting Jessica’s assertions, including the affidavit of Decedent’s sister Heather who describes growing up with Decedent in Jamaica. Heather states that Decedent was pregnant when she was 18 years old which resulted in Ann’s birth. She states that while Decedent was born in Montego Bay, she also lived in Hanover for a time. Another affidavit from a childhood friend confirms Decedent’s pregnancy with Ann. The affidavit states that at some point after Ann was born, Decedent moved to the United States hoping for a better life, leaving Ann in Jamaica with her grandfather. Later, Ann moved in with Heather and her grandmother in Hanover, Jamaica. Heather states that although the Decedent and Ann lived briefly together in Brooklyn, by the time Jessica was born in the 1980′s, Ann was no longer living with the Decedent. Jessica filed a reply and submits copies of Decedent’s Facebook page where the Decedent purportedly alluded to Jessica as her “one only child Jessica [sic]” and an email purportedly written by the Decedent whereby Decedent states that she is leaving certain property to Jessica. Ann argues that these “ new” arguments cannot be raised in a reply to summary judgment. Discussion It is well-settled that summary judgment may only be granted where no triable issues of fact exist. Phillips v. Kantor & Co., 31 N.Y. 2d 307 (1972). “It is axiomatic that because summary judgment deprives parties of their day in court, it is seen as a drastic relief.” Matter of Kazan, N.Y.L.J., July 8, 2013, at p. 30 (Sur. Ct. New York County). The movant has the burden of establishing a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence in admissible form to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact. Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 (1980). If such a showing is made, the party opposing summary judgment must then come forward with proof establishing a genuine issue of material fact or must provide an acceptable excuse for the failure to do so. Id. The party opposing summary judgment is entitled to every favorable inference that can reasonably be drawn from the evidence. See, e.g., Branham v. Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 931 (2007). That evidence may include hearsay so long as it is not the only proof offered in opposition to the motion. Bishop v. Maurer, 106 A.D.3d 622 (1st Dept. 2013). Further, a movant’s reply may not introduce new arguments or grounds in support of the relief sought. Gelaj v. Gelaj, 164 A.D.3d 878 (2nd Dept. 2018). Jessica’s motion fails to demonstrate her entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law. The discrepancies in Decedent’s birth certificate in relation to Ann’s birth certificate do not dispositively disprove that Ann is Decedent’s daughter. Indeed, Jessica’s own submissions undermine her arguments. For example, Jessica avers that Ann’s birth certificate states that her mother’s name is Winsome Barrett rather than Winsome Mae Barrett. However, Jessica’s papers also provide that the Decedent is known by the name of Winsome Barrett without the inclusion of “Mae.” Jessica has failed to prove prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and thus, the burden does not shift to Ann to establish triable issues of fact. In any event, Ann has demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact with affidavits from Decedent’s relatives and friends who affirm the Decedent’s pregnancy with Ann, as well as their relationship as mother and daughter. Accordingly, Jessica’s motion for summary judgment must be denied. CONCLUSION ORDERED that the motion of Jessica Leslie Barrett for summary judgment is denied in its entirety. Dated: November 3, 2022
