New York Probate and Estate Administration Blog

Ruth Bricker, Charles Ballon and the United States Trust Company submitted a counter-application regarding the preliminary letters sent to them for the last will and testament of Anna Lazarus. In the will submitted by Abraham Lautman to the court for probate, Mr. Lautman and United States Trust Company were named as executors. In their petition, Mr. Lautman’s eligibility to serve hold and oversee the assets of Ms. Lazarus is questioned. The company is agreeing to act alone and not together with Mr. Lautman.

From the information was obtained by a New York Probate Lawyer, United States Trust Company alleges a number of misconduct on Mr. Lautman’s part while acting as the decedent’s attorney-in-fact and co-conservator while she was alive. An attorney-in-fact is a person who is legally authorized to transact business-related transactions in behalf of another. A conservatorship is where a person is appointed by court to oversee and mange the financial affairs of a person who is considered as under a legal disability. It is also required that part of the financial accounting is submitted for review. It is said the Mr. Lautman did not submit his records to his co-conservators, including the documents and assets of Ms. Lazarus. He is also charged with preventing access to Ms. Lazarus’ apartment, drawing checks that are payable to himself or cash, and wrongful investment of funds owned by Ms. Lazarus in Great Britain.

The court if there is a good cause may reverse the instruction of a will to make a person an executor of the estate. In the preliminary letters issued, it is required that it is in its original form. This does not remove the court’s authority for a wise discretion in determining who will be part of the execution of the will. Nassau County Probate Lawyers said that leaving out a person named in a later will do not require a full hearing. It can be determined with affidavits as a basis or through a summary hearing. The court says that they prefer to avoid a contest within a contest. The legislature also wants an uncomplicated probate hearing. This is to save on cost and time for the court, and the parties concerned.

A commentary by the Chairman of the Committee on Simplification of New York Probate was cited. It says that nothing is really served by contesting preliminary letters. Appointing a person to take care of the estate immediately is to protect the estate that is the reason why preliminary letters are sent to people mentioned in the will and any addition.

In their decision, the court stated that due process asserts that Mr. Lautman as a named executor, have the chance to answer questions on his ineligibility. There is also no petition that has been submitted to question the validity of the last addition where Mr. Lautman was named. To avoid multiplicity, Brooklyn Probate Lawyers mentioned that the court will wait for any contest to the will. If just in case the will or the addition to the will is contested and the probate denied, which is known to happen, then the condition where Mr. Lautman is an executor is gone. If there is no contest on the will, counsel will notify the court and a hearing on eligibility will be set.

Continue reading " A conservator is a person appointed by court " »

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" »