The following papers were read and considered on Petitioners' petition seeking the issuance of Letters of Administration:

Decedent Jaime Dawn Kranz-Marks died on August 12, 2018. She left a document purporting to be a last will and testament dated June 9, 2015 (the "2015 Will"). On the front page/cover page of the 2015 Will the word "VOID" was hand-written in very large print. The front page/cover page of the 2015 Will also contained the hand-written statement, "My previous will to be executed is with my Aunt Janine Kranz in Wading River." The front page/cover page of the 2015 Will also contained the hand-written statement, "Everything will be left to my three daughters: Jessica, Emily, and Erica Marks ONLY!!!" Below this statement appeared the purported signature of Jaime Morales and the hand-written date of February 10, 2017. Stewart Kranz, the Decedent's father, authenticates the aforesaid handwriting as the Decedent's own, as [*2]well as her signature, which was made in her married name as of February 10, 2017.

The Petitioners argue that the handwriting and signature on the front page/cover page of the 2015 Will constitutes a revocation of that will pursuant to EPTL § 3-4.1(b). Therefore, Petitioners seek to administrate this estate under the laws of intestacy rather than probating the 2015 Will.

Janine Krantz (a successor executor under the 2015 Will) has additionally filed a document purporting to be a prior last will and testament of the Decedent dated January 8, 2014 (the "2014 Will"). She argues that it was the Decedent's intention that the 2014 Will be revived after the 2015 Will was revoked, and thus, the administration proceeding should be denied and the 2014 Will should be probated as per the Decedent's wishes. Janine Krantz is the sole executor under the 2014 Will.

In reply, the Petitioners argue the 2015 Will revoked the 2014 Will and no sufficient evidence exists to revive the 2014 Will pursuant to EPTL § 3-4.6.

EPTL § 3-4.1(a)(1) provides that will may be revoked in writing by the testator, so long as the writing is another valid will or a document executed with the formalities required for the execution and attestation of a will.

EPTL § 3-4.1(a)(2) provides that will may be revoked by certain acts of the testator or acts of others in his/her presence at his/her direction (i.e., burning, tearing, cutting, cancellation, obliteration, or other mutilation or destruction of the will).

EPTL § 3-4.1(b) provides that a will may also be revoked as follows:

In addition to the methods set forth in paragraph (a), a will may be revoked or altered by a nuncupative or holographic declaration of revocation or alteration made in the circumstances prescribed by 3-2.2 by any person therein authorized to make a nuncupative or holographic will. Any such nuncupative declaration of revocation or alteration must be clearly established by at least two witnesses; any such holographic declaration, by an instrument written entirely in the handwriting of the testator, although not executed and attested in accordance with the formalities prescribed by this article for the execution and attestation of a will.

See EPTL § 3-4.1(b). Thus, EPTL § 3-4.1(b) permits a will to be revoked by a holographic/hand-written declaration, but only to the extent that the declaration is made in accordance with the holographic will requirements of EPTL § 3-2.2.

In New York, pursuant to EPTL § 3-2.2, holographic/hand-written wills are only permitted or valid created under the following circumstances:

(b) A nuncupative or holographic will is valid only if made by:

(1) A member of the armed forces of the United States while in actual military or naval service during a war, declared or undeclared, or other armed conflict in which members of the armed forces are engaged.

(2) A person who serves with or accompanies an armed force engaged in actual military or naval service during such war or other armed conflict.

(3) A mariner while at sea.

Writing on a will that does not in any way physically obliterate it is insufficient to operate as a revocation of a will, even though the writing expresses an intention to revoke the will. See, e.g., In re Akers' Will, 74 AD 461 (1st Dept.,1902), aff'd, 173 NY 620 (1903) (writing in margins of will, but not over text or striking text of the will, did not constitute a revocation by cancellation or obliteration); In re Sax' Estate, 25 Misc 2d 576, 577—78 (Sur. Ct., New York Co., 1960) ("The statement of the testatrix that 'This will is not good', standing alone, cannot effect a revocation inasmuch as this writing was not an act performed with the essential statutory formalities"; however, the fact that each page of the will had a red letter "X" through it, as well as cross-marks over the entire attestation clause and witness signatures, sufficiently constituted a revocation).

Here, Petitioners argue that the 2015 Will was revoked by the Decedent pursuant to EPTL § 3-4.1(b), as a result of the handwritten declarations made on the front page/cover page of the 2015 Will. However, such handwritten declarations are only valid to revoke a will if they are made in compliance with EPTL § 3-2.2. The Petitioners have failed to demonstrate compliance with EPTL § 3-2.2. In any event, it does appear that compliance with EPTL § 3-2.2 is possible in this case. The Decedent's death certificate states that she served in the United States Army (from 2008-2016), but that her service ended approximately one year before she purportedly made the handwritten notes on the 2015 Will (on February 10, 2017). As a result, the Decedent's handwritten declarations do not meet the requirements of EPTL § 3-2.2 and, therefore, cannot constitute a revocation of the 2015 Will pursuant to EPTL § 3-4.1(b).

Even if it were argued that the Decedent's handwritten statements on the front page/cover page of the 2015 Will revoked it by writing [See EPTL § 3—4.1(a)(1)(B)], that contention would fail as it was not executed with the formalities required by statute. See, e.g., In re Will of Powers, 48 Misc 3d 1205(A) (Sur. Ct., Oneida Co., 2015).

Even if it were argued that the Decedent's handwritten statements on the front page/cover page of the 2015 Will physically obliterated or cancelled it [See EPTL § 3—4.1(a)(2)(A)], that contention would fail since the Decedent's handwritten statements/marks did not obliterate or cross-out the text of the 2015 Will or any of its critical components. See, e.g., In re Akers' Will, supra; In re Sax' Estate, supra.

As a result, the Court cannot conclude that the 2015 Will was revoked.

Janine Krantz argues that the revocation of the 2015 Will should result in the revival of the prior 2014 Will. No cross-petition seeking probate of the 2014 Will has been filed.

In light of the Court's inability to declare that the 2015 was revoked, Janine Krantz's argument fails.

Regardless, EPTL § 3-4.6 states that the revocation of a later will, by itself, does not revive a prior will. EPTL § 3-4.6 contains additional steps that are required in order to revive a prior will, whether through a new, formally executed and attested codicil or other written declaration reviving the prior will, or a through a formal re-publication, re-execution and re-attestation of the prior will itself. See EPTL § 3-4.6.

As a result, the Court cannot conclude that the 2014 Will was revived.

For the foregoing reasons, the Second Amended Petition seeking Letters of Administration is denied.

As a result of this decision, any interested party under the 2015 Will or the 2014 Will [*3]may petition for probate of either will. If no petition for probate has been filed by June 9, 2020, the Order Extending Letters of Temporary Administration dated January 15, 2020 shall be deemed vacated and void, and the Temporary Administrator's letters shall be deemed revoked, effective June 10, 2020.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.