Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption favoring the validity of respondent's marriage to decedent (see, Matter of Brown, 40 N.Y.2d 938; Matter of Seidel v. Crown Indus., 132 A.D.2d 729). There was simply no convincing evidence to rebut that presented by the expert on German and Austrian law for the years in question, that respondent's marriage to his first wife was properly terminated in 1939 under German law. This 1939 divorce was properly recognized by the Surrogate's Court under the doctrine of comity (see, Greschler v. Greschler, 51 N.Y.2d 368, 376-377).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.