The Surrogate correctly determined that respondent has no right to survivorship in the disputed account in the absence of survivorship language on the signature card (Matter of Timoshevich, 133 A.D.2d 1011, 1012). We also agree with the Surrogate that if a tenancy in common in the account can be presumed, the presumption was rebutted by proof that the account was funded by the decedent with whom respondent stood in a confidential relationship and other evidence that the account was set up as a matter of convenience, and by the absence of evidence that the decedent intended to make a gift to respondent (supra, at 1011-1012; see also, Matter of Camarda, 63 A.D.2d 837, 839). Concerning the enforcement proceeding, respondent, whose attorney appeared in court on the return date of the application without any papers in opposition thereto, failed to raise any issue of fact that warranted a hearing on the issue of jurisdiction (cf., Green Point Sav. Bank v. Taylor, 92 A.D.2d 910).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.