New York Probate and Estate Administration Blog

The public assistance recipients who had been classified as employable with limitations had a filed an instant law suit against the City administration and the State. The people were classified as such because of the medical problems that they have. Their allegation was that the City administration often puts them in jobs that are not compatible with their disabilities. The plaintiffs who have been assigned to the Work Experience Program (WEP) state that aside from the incompatible jobs, the State has failed to supervise the program under the Social Services law.
A New York Probate Lawyer found out that the court has found that the plaintiffs had raised a serious fairness issue and could be entitled to a Writ of Mandamus that requires a government agency to do something that they should by law. It can also be a writ of prohibition, which will prohibit a government agency, even a judge, from doing something that they should not. Or it can also be a Mandamus Review, where a decision of a public agency is reversed.
According to the social services law, in exchange for welfare benefits, the aid recipients need to perform WEP assignments, unless the recipients are exempted due to physical or mental disabilities. The city’s medical contractor determines if they are E-I or employable, E-II or employable with limitations, E-III or temporarily disabled, or E-IV which is permanently disabled. People classified as E-II should still work but will be assigned jobs compatible with their disability.
There are two things that may have gone wrong. The person may have been incorrectly classified or correctly classified but put in the wrong assignment. If a recipient feels that they should not be employable there is a hearing that they can request to determine this. From the information gotten from the city, the process is included in the notices sent to the recipient after they have been classified.
The medical condition of the beneficiary is not accommodated. A person who is also familear with laws in Brooklyn and The Bronx said that the notice states that unless the person requests a hearing within 10 days of receiving the notice, she must continue with the assignment. A named plaintiff, in fact, says that she received her notice without any indication in how to dispute assignments. With her notice, she received an assignment for a maintenance job. She is considered incompatible with this as she has respiratory problems. She requested a hearing before going to the job site so as not to miss the 10-day grace period. The city then said she cannot go on review yet because she is not assigned a specific task yet.
The doctor’s findings are sent in the second notice. The Physician Assessment of Client Employability (PACE) report is the documentation that a beneficiary can bring to a work site to show her limitation. It still does not say anything about the participants’ procedural rights.
The next notice that a beneficiary received contains where they will be assigned. It can be a government office, public park, etc. It does not contain though what specific assignment they would get. The city administrators say this cannot be specified as the work is assigned depending on what that department needs day to day.
The last one that they receive is an orientation manual. It states that they can contest their employability status. It still does not discuss how they can dispute certain assignments. It states that PACE should expressly state that they are unable to work.
The city says that any issue with the job assignment should first be raised with the work-site supervisor and coordinator and then the Participant Services Unit. Only after that they can request a hearing with the city. They state that the proper way is to know what the assignment is first then utilize the current mechanisms available then seek a fair hearing where they still get aid without working.
The court had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Not only, with the notices but also on providing a way on how they can dispute an assignment. Being forced to do an incompatible assignment while the case is being tried is also something that they had made clear to change. With regard to remedy, a New York Estate Lawyer said that the court granted the defendants claim to convert it to the remedies available.

Continue reading " the aid recipients need to perform WEP assignments " »

Chardbourne and Parke, LLP represented the people who are involved in a Will left by Renate Hoffman, deceased. The Will was executed by Hoffman in 1988 and named the German National Church as primary beneficiary of his estate. According to reports that reached a New York Estate Administration lawyer, this 1988 Will was strongly objected and challenged by Robert Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. who were the primary executors of a prior Will of Hoffman which was executed in 1972. This became a long and extensive trial in which the two parties, Chardbourne and Park as well as Warshaw and Chase Manhattan entered in to an agreement in which the German Catholic Church received a considerable sum of $3 million dollars. In addition to this hefty settlement, the church will also receive a half-interest in a trust from the proceeds of the remainder of the estate.

According to further report given to a New York Litigation attorney, Chardbourne and Parke filed a case against Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank because of unpaid legal fees when the former performed its legal duties during the German Catholic Church settlement. Unfortunately their case did not progress in court. The court ruled in favour of the defendants, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan. In 2001 however, Chardbourne and Parke filed for an appeal of the previous decision by the court. Warshaw and Chase Manhattan argued that the 1988 Will was not the correct one to be administered and that Chardbourne has acted knowingly on their own. It was also noted by Warshaw and Manhattan that there was further wrong doing on the part of Chardbourne and Parke, LPP.

The trial continued on and arguments were presented regarding the 1988 Will’s validity which was also again brought up. This is due to the fact that Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank refused to grant Chardbourne and Parke the legal or attorney’s fees. Warshaw and Chase’s argument was that the 1988 Will was only illegal but that Chardbourne and Park was already aware of this but still continued on with its execution. But based on reports gathered by a New York Probate lawyer, when Warshaw and Chase Manhattan Bank entered into an agreement and settlement with Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the latter already impliedly recognized the validity of the Will and the contract agreement both parties entered into. Still according to the court, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan allowed a considerable amount of money be given to the primary beneficiary of the 1988 Will which was the German Catholic Church with a half interest on trust as part of the estate. This was considered by the court as more than enough evidence that both parties agreed on the validity of the Will in question. The court also noted that there is no legal cause to deny Chardbourne and Parke, LLP the legal fees for their services rendered.

On this light, a New York Probate attorney also gathered that with regards to the legal fees in question, the respondents, Warshaw and Chase Manhattan only have the right to question the amount that Chardbourne and Parke will present, if it’s reasonable based on the services they performed but not the to question whether they are entitled to legal fees or not. The same findings would come about in New York City and Westchester county.

Continue reading " Chardbourne and Parke, LLP represented the people who are involved in a Will left by Renate Hoffman, " »