In Matter of Pacanofsky, 186 Misc 2d 15, the Court held that disclosures, essentially consisting of the general language of the statutory model, contained in the will itself rather than a separate writing failed to satisfy SCPA 2307-a for the following three reasons: (1) the statutory language of subdivision (2), to wit, executed "prior to, concurrently with or subsequently to a will," reflects an intent that the disclosure could not be in the will itself; (2) the fact that two of the numerous documents or letters that were submitted to the Governor in support of the legislation stated that the "written acknowledgment [of disclosure] ... 'may be annexed to the will or separately executed' " (Matter of Pacanofsky, at 17); and (3) requiring that the disclosure be made in a separate writing "stands as its own proof that it has at least been squarely put before the testator, rather than included among testamentary provisions and possibly overlooked, or in fact described, as mere legal boilerplate" (at 17).