In re the Estate of Kleefeld

In my view the majority’s conclusion does not accord with the judicial construction of the predecessor provision or the legislative history of the present statute and is inconsistent with the rationale of Matter of Snide (52 NY2d 193). I therefore dissent.

At common law “only such an amount and degree of evidence was required, as to the contents of the will, as was *261necessary to establish any other fact in an action; that is to say, proof of the facts in issue, by a single witness” (Harris v Harris, 26 NY 433, 437), and that remains the rule, except as changed by statute (cf. Olsen v Olsen, 189…