Majority
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York
Plaintiff and Lin made a prima facie showing that Chen was competent and unaffected by undue influence when he executed a change of beneficiary form for the life insurance policy. In opposition, Chen failed to raise triable issues of fact as to his mental capacity or the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship between him and plaintiff (see Kramer v Danalis, 66 AD3d 539 , 539-540 [1st Dept 2009]). Plaintiffs medical evidence was unsworn and therefore insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Henkin v Fast Times Taxi, 307 AD2d 814 , 814-815 [1st Dept 2003]). Given Chen’s failure to submit competent medical evidence in support of his assertion of incapacity, the court was under no obligation to hold a hearing (see Roach v Benjamin, 78 AD3d 468 , 469 [1st Dept 2010]).
We have considered Chen’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Gische, JJ.
Cases cited
- Henkin v. Fast Times Taxi, Inc. 307 AD2d 814 at 814-815 p. 456
- Roach v. Benjamin 78 AD3d 468 at 469 p. 456