- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Matter of Chouake
- Docket
- 2023-12169
- Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Slip Op
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03304
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03304 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2026)
Background
This contested probate proceeding involved the last will and testament of Shoshannah Chouake, who died after a terminal illness. The petitioner — an attorney who was not related to the decedent — was named as both executor and primary beneficiary of the will dated December 28, 2017. The objectant, the decedent’s brother Benjamin Chouake, filed objections to probate on the ground that the will was the product of undue influence.
The record revealed that the petitioner had previously represented the decedent in litigation involving the estate of the decedent’s mother and held a power of attorney for the decedent. Additionally, the petitioner communicated with the attorney who drafted the will regarding its preparation, and the will was executed while the decedent was in the final stages of a terminal illness. The petitioner moved for summary judgment dismissing the undue influence objection. The Surrogate’s Court, Queens County granted the motion and admitted the will to probate. The objectant appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the decree insofar as appealed from, denied the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the undue influence objection. The court found that the petitioner failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether a confidential relationship existed between the petitioner and the decedent and whether the execution of the will resulted from the petitioner’s undue influence.
The court applied the established framework for undue influence claims in probate proceedings, noting that undue influence can be demonstrated through “all the facts and circumstances surrounding the testator,” including family relations, health condition, dependency upon the person alleged to have exerted influence, and that person’s opportunity and disposition to wield influence. Critically, the court held that where a confidential relationship is established between the decedent and the beneficiary — through evidence of “inequality or a controlling influence” — an inference of undue influence arises that “requires the beneficiary to come forward with an explanation of the circumstances of the transaction.”
The evidence here — the petitioner’s role as the decedent’s attorney, his possession of a power of attorney, his communications with the will draftsperson, and the decedent’s terminal illness — raised triable issues as to whether a confidential relationship existed that would shift the burden to the petitioner to explain the circumstances of the bequest.
Takeaways
This decision is a significant application of the undue influence doctrine in the probate context. When an attorney-beneficiary holds a power of attorney, has previously represented the decedent in legal matters, and communicates with the will drafting attorney while the testator is terminally ill, the circumstances raise sufficient questions about undue influence to defeat summary judgment. The existence of a confidential relationship is ordinarily a question of fact, making it difficult to resolve on a summary judgment motion.
The burden-shifting framework is particularly important: once a confidential relationship is established, the beneficiary must explain the circumstances of the bequest. This is not a presumption of invalidity, but it does require the proponent to come forward with evidence demonstrating that the testator acted freely and voluntarily. In this case, the confluence of factors — attorney-client relationship, power of attorney, involvement in will preparation, terminal illness — created a factual matrix that the court found could not be resolved as a matter of law.
Why It Matters
For estate planning attorneys, this case underscores the serious scrutiny that attaches when a lawyer is named as a beneficiary of a client’s will, particularly when the lawyer has played a role in the will’s preparation or has fiduciary authority over the client. Attorneys who stand to benefit from a client’s estate should ensure that the client receives independent legal advice regarding the bequest and that the circumstances of the will’s execution are well-documented. For potential objectants, the decision confirms that the existence of a confidential relationship combined with suspicious circumstances can defeat a proponent’s summary judgment motion and preserve the right to a full hearing on undue influence.