DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order of the Surrogate's Court, dated August 14, 1996, is reversed, on the law, with costs payable by the petitioner, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.
The petitioner did not "demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence, that the premarital relationship between her and the [decedent] manifested `probable' undue and unfair advantage" ( Matter of Greiff 92 N.Y.2d 341, 343, quoting Matter of Gordon v. Bialystoker Ctr. Bikur Cholim, 45 N.Y.2d 692, 699-700). Under these circumstances, it was the petitioner's burden to establish that her execution of a prenuptial agreement whereby she waived her right to an elective share was procured through the decedent's fraud or overreaching ( see, Panossian v. Panossian, 172 A.D.2d 811). The record does not support the petitioner's claim that she was not advised of the effect of the prenuptial agreement, failed to comprehend it, or entered into it unwillingly ( see, Matter of Davis, 20 N.Y.2d 70; Panossian v. Panossian, supra; Eckstein v. Eckstein, 251 A.D.2d 537; Matter of Sunshine, 51 A.D.2d 326, affd 40 N.Y.2d 875; see also, Forsberg v. Forsberg, 219 A.D.2d 615). Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to an elective share against the decedent's estate ( see, EPTL 5-1.1[f][1]) and the petition should have been denied.
The appellants' remaining contention is without merit.