IN RE: Inge Kopf (2026)

Argued—February 9, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

W/

In a contested probate proceeding, the petitioner appeals from (1) a decision of the Surrogate's Court, Queens County (Peter J. Kelly, S.), dated July 7, 2023, and (2) a decree of the same court dated September 18, 2023.  The decree, insofar as appealed from, upon the decision, denied admission of the will to probate and granted letters of administration to the objectant.

ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr.  Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509);  and it is further,

ORDERED that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from;  and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The decedent, Inge Kopf, died on December 24, 2019, survived by her two daughters, the petitioner, Linda Kopf, and the objectant, Petra Kopf. In December 2020, the petitioner filed a petition to admit to probate a purported will of the decedent dated December 18, 2019.  The objectant filed objections to the admission of the purported will to probate, inter alia, on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and fraud.

By order dated November 10, 2021, the Surrogate's Court, among other things, directed the petitioner to provide authorizations for the decedent's medical records.  In November 2022, the petitioner failed to appear for a court-ordered pretrial conference.  In an order dated November 22, 2022, the court directed the petitioner to provide the objectant with authorizations to obtain the decedent's medical records and to produce the petitioner's former husband Fred Kopf, the alternate executor named in the purported will and allegedly one of the decedent's caregivers, for deposition on or before January 20, 2023.  Additionally, the court scheduled a final pretrial conference for January 31, 2023.  The petitioner did not appear for the conference and failed to provide the authorizations or produce Fred Kopf for deposition.  The court further adjourned the pretrial conference to March 2, 2023.  However, the petitioner again failed to appear.

Subsequently, the Surrogate's Court issued a decision dated July 7, 2023, finding that the petitioner had continually failed to provide relevant discovery, disregarded numerous court orders related to discovery, and failed to diligently prosecute the proceedings.  In a decree dated September 18, 2023, the court, upon the decision, inter alia, denied the purported will admission to probate and granted letters of administration to the objectant.  The petitioner appeals.

“The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 lies within the sound discretion of the trial court” (Matter of Apostolidis, 193 AD3d 1039, 1040 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  “Pursuant to CPLR 3126, a court may impose discovery sanctions, including the striking of a pleading or preclusion of evidence, where a party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed” (Matter of Selma V. Kelter Trust, 244 AD3d 1214, 1216 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Pfeffer, 187 AD3d 757, 758).  “The willful or contumacious character of a party's conduct can be inferred from the party's repeated failure to comply with discovery demands or orders without a reasonable excuse” (Matter of Selma V. Kelter Trust, 244 AD3d at 1216 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Hart, 241 AD3d 1469, 1472).  Here, the petitioner's willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from her repeated failures, without adequate excuse, to comply with the Surrogate's Court's discovery orders and her failure to appear at three consecutive court-ordered pretrial conferences (see Matter of Selma V. Kelter Trust, 244 AD3d at 1216–1217;  Matter of Alston, 175 AD3d 602, 603).  Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the purported will admission to probate (see Matter of Pfeffer, 187 AD3d at 758).

Further, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Surrogate's Court providently exercised its discretion in granting letters of administration solely to the objectant (see SCPA 1001[1], [5];  Matter of Sheppard, 63 AD3d 1358, 1358;  Matter of Eisenstein, 158 A.D.2d 597, 598).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.

GENOVESI, J.P., WARHIT, LOVE and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court