Matter of Jehle

Surrogate's Court, Richmond County

Decided on May 19, 2026

File No. 2022-299

Matthew J. Titone, S.

Decedent died a resident of Richmond County on February 14, 2022, survived by his brother William Jehle and his two children: Amanda Jehle, Respondent-objectant herein, and Jennifer Jehle. On March 15, 2022, William Jehle filed a probate petition as the nominated executor of the purported Last Will and Testament (hereinafter "Will") of the decedent, dated December 22, 1997. Thereafter, William Jehle died on January 9, 2025, and his son Evan Jehle, the nominated successor executor, was substituted as petitioner for probate and letters.

The purported Will was alleged to be executed by decedent and witnessed by two witnesses, who each witnessed the attestation clause in the same attorney-supervised execution ceremony. The purported Will was filed with a self-proving affidavit as well. Such instrument devises decedent's entire estate to his brother, William Jehle, and in the event his brother William Jehle predeceased him, then his entire estate to William Jehle's two children, petitioner herein, Evan Jehle and Alayna Jehle in equal shares.

On November 7, 2025, petitioner filed the instant motion for summary judgment pursuant to [*2]CPLR §3212, seeking to admit to probate the purported Will, and to dismiss the objections filed by Respondent. Respondent filed opposition to petitioner's motion on January 5, 2026. Such motion was then marked submitted.

Petitioner affirms that the purported Will was duly executed, supported by substantial evidence, including the examinations of the witnessed, free from influence and therefore, a valid testamentary document.

In support of petitioner's motion, petitioner submits the deposition testimony of attorney draftsman John D. Famulari, attesting witness Dominic J. Famulari, and attesting witness Mary C. Burke, as well as their respective affirmations, which affirm that the purported Will was duly executed and otherwise in compliance with the requirements of EPTL 3-2.1. The attorney draftsman further affirms that he drafted the purported Will, and an accompanying power of attorney, for decedent after having known the decedent for over 20 years.

Petitioner also submits an affidavit, which asserts that the decedent, after his divorce, was completely estranged from his two daughters since in or around late 1990.

In opposition, Respondent alleges that the deposition testimony of witness Dominic Famulari and witness Mary Burke contained a lack of recollection and inconsistencies which present a triable issue of fact. Respondent alleges that neither Famulari or Burke affirmed that decedent published and declared the document to be his last will and testament.

Further, Respondent alleges that no search was completed for any earlier or later dated testamentary documents. Moreover, such failure to search is compounded by the destruction or donation of the decedent's belongings by William Jehle, who was in control of the premises after the demise of decedent.

Respondent argues that pursuant to petitioner's testimony, the sole beneficiary under the purported Will decided what documents were "relevant" to the litigation, and either destroyed or gave to charity everything remaining in decedent's house. Further Respondent assert undue influence.

A proponent of a Will has the burden of proving that the propounded instrument was duly executed in conformance with the statutory requirements (EPTL 3-2.1[a]; Matter of Sundmacher, 192 AD3d 898 [2d Dep't 2021]). Where the Will is drafted by an attorney, and the drafting attorney supervises the Will's execution, there is a presumption of regularity that the Will was properly executed (supra; see also Matter of Armato, 199 AD3d 999 [2d Dep't 2021]). A presumption of compliance also arises where the propounded instrument contains an attestation clause and self-proving affidavit, even where the witnesses are later unable to recollect the execution (see Matter of Collins, 60 NY2d 466 [1983]. Matter of Sabatelli. 161 AD3d 872 [2d Dep't. 2018]).

The proponent of a Will has the burden of proving that the testator possessed testamentary capacity, and the court must look to the following factors: (1) whether the testator understood the nature and consequences of executing a will; (2) whether the testator knew the nature and extent of the property being disposed; and (3) whether the testator knew those who would be considered the natural objects of testator's bounty (Matter of Martinico, 177 AD3d 882 [2d Dep't 2019]).

Moreover, less capacity is required to enable one to make a Will than to make other contracts (Matter of Coddington, 281 A.D. 143 [3d Dep't 1952], affd 307 NY 181 [1954]). Testamentary capacity need only be shown at the time the Will was executed (see Matter of Anella, 88 AD3d 993, 995 [2d Dep't 2011]; Matter of Weltz, 16 AD3d 428 [2d Dep't 2005]; Matter of Rosen, 291 [*3]AD2d 562 [2d Dep't 2002]), and "[it] has long been recognized that old age, physical weakness and senile dementia are not necessarily inconsistent with testamentary capacity as long as the testatrix was acting rationally and intelligently at the time the instrument was prepared and executed" (Matter of Hedges, 100 AD2d 586, 588 [2d Dep't 1984]; Matter of Romano, 137 AD3d 922, 923 [2d Dep't 2016]).

Within, the deposition testimony and affirmations of the attorney draftsman John D. Famulari and attesting witness Dominic J. Famulari, and deposition testimony of attesting witness Mary C. Burke, demonstrate the decedent's capacity at the time of the Will's execution.

Further, the burden of proof on the issues of fraud, undue influence, and duress fall on the objectant (Simcuski v. Saeli, 44 NY2d 442 [1978]). To prevail upon the claim of fraud, Respondents are obligated to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that petitioner knowingly made false statements to the testator (Matter of Gross, 242 AD2d 333 [2d Dep't 1997]). Here, the unsupported assertion by Respondents that the attorney draftsman was also the attorney for the sole beneficiary of the purported Will fails to meet their burden (see Matter of Mooney, 74 AD3d 1073 [2d Dep't 2010]).

Additionally, to vitiate a Will on the ground of undue influence, it must be shown that the influence exercised amounted to a moral coercion, "which restrained independent action and destroyed free agency, or which, by importunity, could not be resisted, constrained the testator to do that which was against his free will and desire, but which he was unable to refuse or too weak to resist" (Matter of Engelhardt, 88 AD3d 997, 998 [2d Dep't 2011]). Here, no such showing has been made.

Here, petitioner demonstrates his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the purported Will execution ceremony was supervised by the drafting attorney, was accompanied by the execution of an attestation clause and self-proving affidavit. All of which is supported by the deposition transcripts of the attorney-draftsman John D. Famulari and attesting witnesses Dominic J. Famulari and Mary C. Burke.

Moreover, a Will may be admitted to probate notwithstanding the failed or imperfect memory of both attesting witnesses, and courts have permitted probate even where the attesting witnesses have testified against the Will (see Matter of Natale, 158 AD3d 579 [1st Dep't 2018]).

Where the proponent of the Will makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial (see Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824 [2014]). Here, Respondent has not raised a triable issue of fact.

The allegations in the opposition pose questions in the negative, and do not overcome the presumption of compliance. Any faulty memory of the witnesses to the purported will, is overcome by the attestation clause, which attests to the due execution of the instrument.

Furthermore, this instrument was executed over twenty-four years prior to the passing of the decedent. In New York State, when a last will and testament is over thirty (30) years old, under certain conditions, it may be deemed sufficient to establish its genuineness. (see Matter of Samelson's Will, 243 NY2d 345, 346 (Sur. Kings Co 1963). In Richmond County, where a testamentary instrument was executed under the supervision of an attorney, the court has applied a twenty (20) year timeframe to such ancient wills. Here the purported Will, executed under an attorney's supervision, qualifies as such ancient document since it was executed on December 22, 1997, over twenty-four (24) years prior to the death of decedent, and its genuineness is presumed.

The court has considered Respondent's remaining contentions and finds them unavailing.

Accordingly, petitioner's motion for summary judgment, admitting the Will to probate and dismissing the objections, is granted.

Accordingly, the propounded instrument, dated December 22, 1997, is hereby admitted to probate.

Letters Testamentary shall issue to Evan Jehle, having duly qualified according to law.

In addition, the preliminary letters testamentary previously issued on April 8, 2025, are revoked.

This decision shall constitute the order of the court.

Dated: May 19, 2026

MATTHEW J. TITONE, Surrogate