Will Contest Dismissed on Summary Judgment: No Confidential Relationship or Undue Influence

Wills and Estate Planning Controversies — Case Summaries

Will Contest Dismissed on Summary Judgment: 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, Case No. 2025-05742, 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 maintained a distant relationship with his parents and his sister (the objectant), rarely visited them, and provided no assistance with the decedent’s personal or financial affairs. His involvement with the estate planning was limited to four phone calls with the decedent’s attorney in connection with the will drafting. Notably, in connection with the penultimate November 13, 2015 will and trust, the decedent rejected Charles’s suggestions—demonstrating her independence. There was no evidence the decedent was unable to manage her own 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. 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 had favored the objectant in his estate plan.

Procedural Background

Following the decedent’s death, the petitioner commenced a proceeding to probate the December 18, 2015 Last Will and Testament. The objectant daughter filed objections alleging constructive fraud and undue influence. The Surrogate’s Court of New York County granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the constructive fraud objection but denied the motion as to the undue influence objection. On appeal, the Appellate Division unanimously modified the order 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 and whose decision to disinherit was consistent with her frequently expressed wishes.

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, to the objectant’s detriment. 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 order to dismiss both the constructive fraud and undue influence objections, granting summary judgment in favor of the petitioner on both grounds. 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. It was undisputed that since his marriage, Charles had maintained a distant relationship with his parents and sister, rarely visited them, and no evidence was presented that he assisted the decedent with her personal or financial affairs other than his four phone calls with her attorney. There was no evidence Charles had power or control over the decedent, and in fact, in connection with the penultimate November 13, 2015 will and trust, the decedent rejected his suggestions. The decedent was a practicing oncologist, and there was no evidence she was unable to manage her affairs—her credit card bills showed she shopped for herself, dined out, visited beauty salons, and traveled internationally. In view of the foregoing, the court properly dismissed the constructive fraud objection because there was no confidential relationship. On undue influence, the objectant failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue. The evidence showed 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 of the December 18, 2015 instrument described the decedent as “clear, lucid, aware, and informed.” An attesting witness stated that 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.