Estate Administration

Published on: June 2, 2026

Attorney-in-Fact Must Act in Principal’s Best Interest When Making Gifts Under a Power of Attorney. Matter of Ferrara, 7 N.Y.3d 244 (2006)

by Stephen Bilkis

A power of attorney is a legal document that allows one person, known as the principal, to authorize another person, known as the attorney-in-fact or agent, to handle financial and other affairs on the principal’s behalf. While a power of attorney can grant broad authority, that authority is not unlimited. In Matter of Ferrara, 7 N.Y.3d 244 (2006), the New York Court of Appeals considered whether an attorney-in-fact who was expressly authorized to make unlimited gifts to himself could transfer nearly all of the principal’s assets to himself. The case focused on the duties owed by an attorney-in-fact and the meaning of the statutory requirement that gifts be made in the principal’s best interest.

Background Facts

George J. Ferrara was a retired stockbroker living in Florida. In June 1999, he executed a will leaving his entire estate to the Salvation Army. The will specifically stated that he intended to leave nothing to family members or other individuals. He later executed a codicil reaffirming those wishes.

Published on: June 1, 2026

Summary Removal of Executors Requires a Hearing When Material Facts Are Disputed. Matter of Duke, 87 N.Y.2d 465 (1996)

by Stephen Bilkis

The executor of an estate is responsible for gathering assets, paying debts, and carrying out the terms of a decedent’s will. Because an executor serves in a fiduciary role, New York law permits a court to remove an executor who engages in misconduct or whose actions threaten the estate. However, courts are generally reluctant to override a testator’s choice of executor. In Matter of Duke, 87 N.Y.2d 465 (1996), the New York Court of Appeals considered whether a Surrogate’s Court could summarily remove executors of a billion-dollar estate without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Background Facts

Doris Duke died in October 1993, leaving an estate valued at more than $1 billion. Much of her estate was left to charitable organizations. Her will named Bernard Lafferty, who was described as her assistant and confidant, as the individual coexecutor of her estate. The will gave Lafferty authority to select a corporate coexecutor, and he chose United States Trust Company.

Published on: January 22, 2025

Whether the Surrogate’s Court has the authority to modify the 100% allocation ordered by Supreme Court. Matter of Hoyte, 2021 NY Slip Op 21090

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Hoyte, 2021 NY Slip Op 21090 involves the distribution of settlement proceeds following an untimely death, raising questions of jurisdiction and allocation between personal injury and wrongful death claims. The Petitioner, Clathina McMillan-Hoyte, seeks approval for the distribution, while the Albany County Department of Social Services (DSS) objects, asserting a Medicaid lien on the personal injury portion.

In New York, the allocation between personal injury and wrongful death claims involves determining how to distribute settlement proceeds. Recoveries designated for wrongful death, governed by EPTL 5-4.4, are distributed among the decedent’s distributees according to their pecuniary injuries. This process aims to prevent creditors from accessing funds allocated to wrongful death, emphasizing the distinct nature of these claims. Such allocations are subject to careful legal scrutiny, providing a framework for just and equitable distribution in cases involving personal injury and wrongful death.

Background Facts

Published on: December 20, 2023

Should the court compel turnover of corporate minutes relevant to an estate? Matter of Baugher 2014 NY Slip Op 51090(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In estate proceedings, the involvement of corporate holdings, like a company owned by the deceased, can significantly affect the distribution of assets. Imagine someone owned a business worth millions when they passed away. Now, their estate has to be sorted out. The company’s value and income become part of the estate’s total worth. If there are specific legal matters or disputes, details about the company, its finances, and decisions made in board meetings may become crucial.

In the case of Phebe Baugher, her estate involved about $22 million linked to W.S. Wilson Corporation. So, understanding how the company operated, especially after Phebe’s death, becomes vital. Jonathan Kirk Baugher, managing the estate’s initial steps, wanted more information about what happened in meetings after 2008, likely to ensure everything was handled correctly. This shows how the corporate side of things can be tightly connected to the overall estate proceedings. The court’s decision on accessing specific corporate records can significantly impact how the estate is managed and how assets are eventually distributed among heirs.

Background Facts

Published on: December 18, 2023

Google is obligated to disclose contacts and calendar information under EPTL 13-A-3.2. Matter of Serrano 2017 NY Slip Op 27200

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York small estate proceeding is a simplified legal process for handling the assets of a deceased person when their estate is relatively small. It streamlines the probate or administration process, making it quicker and less complex. Typically, it’s available when the total value of the estate is below a certain threshold. This procedure helps heirs and beneficiaries access the deceased person’s assets more efficiently, minimizing the legal requirements and costs associated with a standard probate or administration process for larger estates.

In this small estate proceeding, the petitioner seeks access to his deceased spouse’s Google email, contacts, and calendar information under Article 13 of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA). The request aims to inform friends of the passing and address any pending matters. However, Google insists on a court order ensuring compliance with privacy laws.

Background Facts

Published on: December 11, 2023

Department of Social Services’ potential standing as an interested party in wrongful death compromise proceedings. Matter of Maier, 178 Misc. 2d 1061 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1998)

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Maier, 178 Misc. 2d 1061 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1998) is about a wrongful death compromise proceeding and sheds light on the nuanced intersection of personal injury law, estate distribution, and the role of social services.

Wrongful death actions arise when an individual’s death is caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of another party. For example, if someone is killed in car accident because another driver rain through a red light, a wrongful action could be brought against the negligent driver. Or, as in Matter of Maier, a death due to medical malpractice. Typically, these actions are initiated by the decedent’s personal representative or the estate on behalf of surviving family members who have experienced damages due to the death.

A distinctive aspect of a wrongful death compromise lies in the necessity to determine not only the amount of money to be awarded to the plaintiff (if any) but also how these funds are to be allocated. In a wrongful death compromise, the court must ascertain the monetary awards attributed to wrongful death versus personal injury. Damages attributable to wrongful death are granted exclusively to the decedent’s distributees, recognizing their compensation for the loss incurred due to their dependence on the deceased individual. Conversely, damages attributed to personal injury and pain and suffering are allocated through the estate. Subsequently, these funds are distributed in accordance with the terms specified in the decedent’s will or based on the laws of intestate succession.

Published on: November 15, 2023

Court considered whether ancillary letters of administration should be issued. Matter of Dillon 2017 NY Slip Op 27388

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Dillon, 2017 NY Slip Op 27388 involves the estate of Terry J. Dillon, who died intestate in Maryland in 2016. A Small Estate Petition was filed in Maryland, where the decedent’s son, Jason M. Dillon, was appointed as the personal representative. Subsequently, Jason filed a petition in New York for ancillary letters of administration due to the decedent’s real estate holdings in the state.

Ancillary administration in New York refers to the legal process when someone passes away with assets in New York but is not a resident of New York. According to SCPA §1601, this process allows the executor, who manages the primary estate in the decedent’s domicile, to obtain additional authority to handle assets in New York. It ensures a proper and coordinated settlement of the deceased person’s affairs, even if their primary estate proceedings occur in a different jurisdiction. Ancillary administration follows the statutes outlined in SCPA §1309 and SCPA §206, ensuring compliance with New York estate laws.

Background Facts

Published on: August 9, 2023

Court considered how to address the DDS’s failure to timely file objections in wrongful death case. In re Torres 28 Misc. 3d 677 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2010)

by Stephen Bilkis

Cases involving wrongful death settlements can be quite complex, as demonstrated in the case of In re Torres, 28 Misc. 3d 677 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2010) , involving the New York City Department of Social Services (DSS).

Wrongful death occurs when an individual dies due to the negligent or intentional actions of another party. This legal concept allows surviving family members to seek compensation for their losses resulting from the death. A wrongful death claim typically arises when the deceased would have had a personal injury claim had they survived.

A wrongful death compromise proceeding seeks to determine who to allocate money awarded as a result of the death. The money can be designated as based on a wrongful death claim or a personal injury claim. The damages awarded for wrongful death are meant for the pecuniary losses suffered by the decedent’s distributees, whereas personal injury damages might include compensation for the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering. Proper allocation ensures the right parties receive the appropriate compensation.

Published on: July 3, 2023

In a case about allocation of wrongful death award, the court addresses an issue of jurisdiction. In re Mcmillan-Hoyte, 71 Misc. 3d 1042 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves a petition by Clathina McMillan-Hoyte, as the Administrator of the Estate of Henderson T. Hoyte, seeking approval for the allocation and distribution of settlement proceeds. The matter arises from the allocation of 100% of the settlement to wrongful death, a decision challenged by the Albany County Department of Social Services (DSS). This blog will delve into the background facts, the key issue of jurisdiction, the court’s holding, a brief discussion of relevant legal principles, and a conclusion.

This case involves a wrongful death. Wrongful death refers to a legal claim arising when a person dies due to the negligence, intentional actions, or misconduct of another party. For example, if someone dies due to medical malpractice, the decedent’s survivors and/or estate made have a claim against the negligent medical professional. This cause of action allows the surviving family members or beneficiaries to seek compensation for the losses they suffered as a result of the decedent’s death.

When a wrongful death claim results in a monetary award, the court must determine during a wrongful death compromise proceeding, if the award is for wrongful death or for personal injury. This is a critical determination because it determines who is actually entitled to the money. If the money is awarded for wrongful death, the decedent’s next of kin would be entitled to receive it. However, if the money is for personal injury, then the decedent’ estate would be entitled to receive it. The money would go through the probate process and would ultimately be distributed based on the decedent’s will or intestate succession.

Published on: July 3, 2023

Surrogate’s Court dismissed objections based on lack of testamentary capacity, finding them to be based on mere surmise. In re Horn 68 Misc. 3d 1217 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In re Horn, 68 Misc. 3d 1217 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2020), the dispute revolves around the Last Will and Testament dated January 15, 2019, including a claim related to the testamentary capacity of the testator. Testamentary capacity is crucial in ensuring the validity of a person’s will. It reflects the mental and emotional state of the testator, verifying their ability to comprehend the nature of their assets, understand the consequences of their decisions, and identify rightful beneficiaries. Establishing testamentary capacity safeguards against potential exploitation, fraud, or undue influence. A sound mind during will creation ensures that the document truly represents the individual’s intentions. Without testamentary capacity, the legitimacy of the will may be questioned, leading to legal disputes and jeopardizing the deceased’s final wishes. Thus, testamentary capacity is indispensable for maintaining the integrity of the probate process.

Factual Background

Russell L. Van Horn passed away on January 19, 2019, leaving a contested last will and testament dated January 15, 2019 (the “January 15th Will”). While hospitalized due to cancer at Orange Regional Medical Center, Decedent’s nephew, Kiel Van Horn, drafted a will on January 14, 2019 (the “January 14th Will”), incorporating handwritten changes made by the Decedent. The January 14th Will bequeathed property and assets to family members, including a 1/5 share of the estate residue to Objectant Tammy Long. On January 15, 2019, Kiel Van Horn created the January 15th Will, revoking the previous version. Objectant Long contests the January 15th Will, alleging lack of capacity, duress, undue influence, or fraud.