Will Contest Dismissed: No Confidential Relationship or Undue Influence Where Decedent Was Practicing Physician Who Independently Chose to Disinherit Daughter

Wills and Estate Planning Controversies — Case Analysis

Will Contest Dismissed: No Confidential Relationship or Undue Influence Where Decedent Was Practicing Physician Who Independently Chose to Disinherit Daughter

Prepared March 15, 2026

Court

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Date

March 12, 2026

Citation

In the Matter of Lilan M. Reich, Deceased, No. 6081, File No. 3896/16, 2026 WL 691829 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't Mar. 12, 2026)

Summary of Relevant Facts

The decedent Lilan M. Reich was a practicing oncologist. In 2015, she executed a will and trust. Her son Charles Reich was the petitioner seeking to probate the will. The decedent's daughter objected, alleging constructive fraud and undue influence by Charles. However, since his marriage, Charles had a distant relationship with his parents and objectant sister, rarely visited them, and provided no evidence that he assisted the decedent with her personal or financial affairs beyond four phone calls with her attorney in connection with the will drafting. Evidence showed that in connection with the penultimate November 13, 2015 will and trust, the decedent rejected Charles's suggestions. There was no evidence the decedent was unable to manage her affairs—her credit card bills showed that in 2015 and 2016, she shopped for herself, went to restaurants and beauty salons, and traveled to Peru on a group tour.

Procedural Background

The Surrogate's Court, New York County, granted the petitioner's motion for summary judgment dismissing the constructive fraud objection to probating the December 18, 2015 Last Will and Testament, but denied the motion as to the undue influence objection. On appeal, the Appellate Division unanimously modified, on the law, to also grant summary judgment dismissing the undue influence objection, and otherwise affirmed.

Main Controversies

The central controversies were: (1) whether the son had a confidential relationship with the decedent sufficient to support a constructive fraud claim; (2) whether the son exercised undue influence over the decedent in the execution of the will that effectively disinherited the daughter; and (3) what quantum of evidence is required to raise a triable issue of fact on undue influence when the decedent was a competent professional who independently managed her own affairs.

Position of the Parties

The objectant daughter alleged that Charles had a confidential relationship with their mother and exercised undue influence to procure a will favorable to himself. Charles argued there was no confidential relationship—he had been distant from his parents since his marriage, did not assist with his mother's personal or financial affairs, and did not have power or control over the decedent. He also argued the decedent was a practicing physician who was lucid and independent, and that her decision reflected her own frequently expressed wishes to treat her children equitably in light of her belief that her husband had favored the objectant.

Holding or Decision

The Appellate Division unanimously modified the Surrogate's Court's order to dismiss both the constructive fraud and undue influence objections. The court found no triable issue of fact on either claim.

Reasons for the Decision

On constructive fraud, the court found no confidential relationship existed between Charles and the decedent. Charles had been distant since his marriage, rarely visited, and provided no assistance with his mother's affairs. The decedent was a practicing oncologist who managed her own life independently. On undue influence, the court found that the December 18, 2015 will and trust were the product of the decedent's often expressed desire to have her children treated equitably and her belief that her husband favored the objectant in his estate plan. The attorney supervising the execution described the decedent as “clear, lucid, aware, and informed.” An attesting witness stated the decedent's determination to disinherit the objectant was “thoughtful and considered” and that when questioned, she specifically denied that her decision was influenced by the petitioner. The objectant failed to cite any conduct showing Charles exerted power over the decedent to affect her estate plan. The decedent provided the objectant with the business card of her estate planning attorney, and Charles made no effort to isolate the decedent from the objectant, who visited her frequently.