IN RE: the Application of Anonymous A (2026)

Papers Considered:

NYSCEF Documents 166-176, 182, 186-188, 193-195, 208, 250 1

Upon the foregoing papers, and after oral argument, the motion by the petitioner, Anonymous A, under index number 850197/2026, for an order pursuant to CPLR 408 directing the disclosure of the estate planning documents drafted and/or executed on behalf of Anonymous B, is granted to the extent indicated below. Cross-petitioner Anonymous E joined in support of the motion; cross-petitioner Anonymous F, counsel to Anonymous B, and the temporary co-guardian of the property management of Anonymous B all oppose the motion.

This Court has separated the joint trial of this Article 81 guardianship proceeding into multiple phases, for good cause shown, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.07 and 81.13, due to its highly complex and quasi-commercial nature (see, Matter of Anonymous A (Anonymous B), ___Misc 3d___, 2026 NY Slip Op 26069 [Sup Ct. Nassau County 2026, Knobel, J]). After the trial on the first phase — whether the alleged incapacitated persons in both actions were incapacitated at the time of the filing of the guardianship petitions - this Court issued a decision, order and judgment dated July 6, 2026 (Knobel, J.) adjudicating Anonymous B and Anonymous D as incapacitated persons see, Matter of Anonymous A (Anonymous B), ___Misc 3d ___,2025 NY Slip Op 26103 [Sup Ct. Nassau County 2026 Knobel, J.]).

The second and third phases of this trial are scheduled to commence on September 14, 2026, to determine the validity of the estate planning documents allegedly executed by Anonymous B and Anonymous D in April, 2025 — a will, a trust, a power of attorney and a health care proxy — which are purportedly in the possession of Anonymous F. The central question at trial is whether or not, prior to and during the execution of these advanced directives, undue influence or overreaching took place against Anonymous B and/or Anonymous D.

Counsel for the parties in opposition to the motion argue that the discovery request by Anonymous A and Anonymous E is overbroad, not material and not relevant since inter alia Article 81 specifically prohibits this Court from invalidating a will (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.29 (d); ( Matter of Vincent V.L. (Matthew L.—Tomasine F., ___AD3d___ 2026 NY Slip Op 01789 [2nd Dept. March 26, 2026]).

This Court has been reluctant to authorize a party to conduct discovery in a guardianship proceeding (see, Matter of Anonymous A (Anonymous B), supra)."Among the factors weighed [by the court] are whether the party seeking disclosure has established that the requested information is material and necessary,¹ whether the request is carefully tailored to obtain the necessary information and whether undue delay will result from the request" (Matter of Suit-Kote Corp. v Rivera (see Matter of Suit-Kote Corp. v Rivera, 137 AD3d 1361, at 1365 [citations omitted]), 26 NYS3d 642 [3d Dept 2016].

The arguments by counsel in opposition are not persuasive. This Court will have to make a determination as to the validity of estate planning documents which were all allegedly executed a year before the first guardianship petition was filed, and a finding of incapacity six months later. To prohibit Anonymous A and Anonymous E from the reviewing the estate planning documents during phases two and three of the trial would amount to trial by ambush. In addition, "the content of the subject will may [contain] probative and relevant evidence to show undue influence or the lack of capacity to execute documents when compared to previous testamentary documents (see Matter of Brandon, 55 NY2d 206, 433 N.E.2d 501, 448 N.Y.S.2d 436 [1982]; Hauzinger v. Hauzinger, 43 AD3d 1289, 842 N.Y.S.2d 646 [4th Dep't 2007]" ( Matter of Corrine S. (Steven S.), 78 Misc 3d 1236 (A), 2023 NY Slip Op 50427 (U) [Sup Ct. Nassau County 2023, Knobel, J.]). Consequently the documents sought are material and relevant to the upcoming phases of the trial.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the estate planning documents executed in April and May of 2025, including but not limited to any executed or drafted Wills, Trusts, Powers of Attorney, and Health Care proxies, are to be provided by Anonymous F's counsel to all parties and counsel on or before August 10, 2026.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

ENTER

DATED: JULY 29, 2026

HON. GARY F. KNOBEL J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Court of Appeals in Forman v Henkin (30 NY3d 656, 665, 70 NYS3d 157, 93 NE3d 882 [2018]) reiterated the well established New York's maxim on the scope of discovery:" ' [t]he words, "material and necessary" [as codified in CPLR 3101 (a)] are . . . to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason' (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406, 235 NE2d 430, 288 NYS2d 449 [1968]; see also Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 746, 731 NE2d 589, 709 NYS2d 873 [2000])" (Forman v Henkin, 30 NY3d 656, 661-662, 70 NYS3d 157, 93 NE3d 882 [2018]).

Gary F. Knobel, J.