ORDERED that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellants personally.
The will was duly executed pursuant to EPTL 3-2.1. Moreover, where, as here, the attorney-draftsman supervised the will's execution, there is a presumption of regularity that the will was properly executed in all respects (see, Matter of Kindberg, 207 N.Y. 220, 228; Matter of Finocchio, 270 A.D.2d 418). The proponent set forth prima facie evidence that the decedent was alert and of sound mind at the time of execution and that she knew the nature of the act she was performing, the extent of her property, and the natural objects of her bounty (see, Matter of Kumstar, 66 N.Y.2d 691, 692; Matter of Marsh, 236 A.D.2d 404, 405; Matter of Margolis, 218 A.D.2d 738, 739; Matter of Morris, 208 A.D.2d 733). The objectants failed to rebut this showing that the decedent possessed the requisite testamentary capacity set forth under EPTL 3-1.1. Additionally, the objectants failed to demonstrate that the decedent was subjected to undue influence (see, Matter of Bustanoby, 262 A.D.2d 407, 408; Matter of Spangenberg, 248 A.D.2d 543).
ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, COZIER and PRUDENTI, JJ., concur.