Matter of Sylvestri, 40 N.Y.2d 260 (1976)
The opinion of a handwriting expert, evaluated with its underlying reasoning, is admissible and can be sufficient to rebut the testimony of attesting witnesses regarding the genuineness of a testator’s signature on a will.
Summary
This case addresses whether a will can be rejected for lack of due execution based on a handwriting expert’s testimony that the testatrix’s signature was not genuine, even when three disinterested, credible attesting witnesses testified otherwise. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the handwriting expert’s opinion was admissible and the jury was entitled to weigh that evidence alongside the attesting witnesses’ testimony. The court rejected a rule that would automatically deem expert testimony insufficient to overcome direct witness testimony.
Facts
Palma Sylvestri, an 87-year-old illiterate woman, allegedly executed a will leaving the bulk of her estate to one daughter (the proponent) and smaller bequests to other children and grandchildren. Three attorneys, acting as attesting witnesses, testified that Sylvestri signed and acknowledged the will in their presence. The objectants (other children) presented a handwriting expert who testified that the signature on the will did not match Sylvestri’s known signatures. The expert detailed his comparison of distinguishing characteristics. The proponent offered a rebuttal expert who reached the opposite conclusion, but his testimony was weakened by doubts about the authenticity of some signatures he relied on. The jury found that the decedent had not signed the will.
Procedural History
The Surrogate’s Court jury rejected the will. The proponent’s motions for a directed verdict and to set aside the verdict were denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Surrogate’s Court decree, denying probate. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimony of a handwriting expert, standing alone, is sufficient to create a jury question regarding the genuineness of a testator’s signature on a will in the face of direct testimony from disinterested attesting witnesses who claim to have seen the testator sign the will.
Holding
No, because the adverse opinion of a handwriting expert, which the jury must evaluate and analyze based on the expert’s explanations, is to be weighed with other credible evidence and need not be regarded as inadequate to rebut the testimony of subscribing witnesses.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that expert handwriting analysis is inherently unreliable and insufficient to overcome the testimony of attesting witnesses. The court noted that modern handwriting analysis is a scientific study aided by precise instruments, allowing experts to provide tangible reasons for their opinions. The court cited Wigmore on Evidence, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence, such as handwriting analysis, can be more convincing than the testimony of attesting witnesses. The court stated, “[T]he testimony of the attesting witnesses is of course not conclusive in favor of execution even when all agree and when no personal impeachment is attempted. * * * [S]pecifically, the unanimous testimony of the attesters may fail of credit even though the only opposing evidence is that of the alleged maker’s handwriting as analyzed by expert witnesses. The circumstantial evidence afforded by the handwriting may in a given case be more convincing than the testimony of the attesters. This possibility is one of the results of the modern scientific study of handwriting.” The court also pointed to the significant differences apparent even to an untrained eye between the signature on the will and the decedent’s undisputed signatures on other documents. Conflicting testimony among the attesting witnesses further supported the jury’s decision. Therefore, the jury’s resolution of the issue of due execution was supported by the record and beyond the court’s power to disturb.