Probate & Estate Litigation

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: January 2, 2024

Surrogate’s Court refused to restrain a foreign proceeding, allowing probate to proceed in Israel. Matter of Cohen 2004 NY Slip Op 24426

by Stephen Bilkis

When attempting to probate a will in New York that originated in another country, several issues may arise. The court must navigate differences in legal systems, questioning the validity of the foreign will under New York law. Considerations include the deceased person’s connection to New York, the residence of beneficiaries, and the executor’s location. The court may assess if the decedent directed probate in New York, weighing the convenience of parties involved. Potential conflicts arise, as the court must balance New York’s interest with the foreign jurisdiction’s primary role in determining the will’s validity. These complexities highlight the importance of careful legal evaluation and the potential need for the court to exercise discretion in deciding whether to accept jurisdiction over the foreign will.

Matter of Cohen 2004 NY Slip Op 24426 involves a dispute among the surviving children of Anna Cohen, who passed away in 1991. The conflict centers on the probate of Anna Cohen’s will in Israel, with Esther Green seeking to challenge the letters of administration granted to her sister, Deb Ireland, in the United States.

Background Facts

Published on: December 27, 2023

Surrogate’s Court considered whether to enforce a settlement agreement made through alternative dispute resolution.Matter of Eckert 2022 NY Slip Op 50095(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

When someone dies intestate in New York, it means they passed away without a valid will. In this situation, the New York’s laws step in to determine how the deceased person’s estate will be distributed. If the decedent has both a surviving spouse and a child, New York’s intestate succession laws come into play.

The surviving spouse receives the first $50,000 of the estate plus half of the remaining balance. The child, or children, inherit the other half of the remaining balance. This legal framework is designed to ensure that the surviving spouse is provided for, but it also recognizes the rights of the decedent’s children to a share of the estate.

Matter of Eckert, 2022 NY Slip Op 50095(U) revolves around the intestate estate of James Eckert, who passed away in 2018, sparking a legal dispute between his surviving child, Michelle Eckert, and his spouse, Tara Connelly. The conflict arose when Michelle Eckert contested the marriage’s validity and sought administration of the estate. Despite an initial agreement reached during an ADR session, a subsequent breakdown in negotiations led to Michelle Eckert filing a motion to enforce the settlement.

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 13, 2023

The court considered whether the renunciation of an interest in an estate was effective. Matter of Fakhra 2023 NY Slip Op 23201

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Fakhra, 2023 NY Slip Op 23201 involves a dispute within a small estate proceeding following the intestate death of the decedent in May 2020. The two adult children, Sara Nabil Fakhra (Petitioner) and Aous Fakhra (Respondent), were appointed Co-Administrators of the estate. The conflict arises from Aous Fakhra’s renunciation of his interest in the estate and a subsequent disagreement regarding the effectiveness of the renunciation.

In New York, a will renunciation occurs when an individual, typically an heir or a beneficiary named in a will, formally declines or renounces their right to inherit from the deceased person’s estate. This legal process is governed by the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) § 2-1.11. When someone chooses to renunciate, they are essentially saying, “I don’t want to inherit what the deceased person left for me in their will.”

Renunciation is often done for various reasons, such as personal financial planning, avoiding tax implications, or addressing family dynamics. It’s a strategic decision that involves a formal written statement, signed and acknowledged by the person renouncing, stating their intention to reject the inheritance. This statement needs to be filed with the court within nine months after the effective date of the disposition, as specified by the EPTL.

Published on: December 6, 2023

Court rejects children’s allegations of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity. In re Burrows, No. 2022-01936 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 18, 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

Families often find themselves entangled in disputes over wills, particularly when claims of lacking testamentary capacity and undue influence arise. Such disagreements frequently arise due to differing interpretations of the deceased’s intentions or changes in familial dynamics. Courts, cognizant of the gravity of these allegations, meticulously assess each claim. To substantiate assertions of testamentary incapacity or undue influence, the court demands compelling evidence. The case of Burrows v. Burrows is an example of a situation where were such claims.

Background Facts

The case involved the contested estate of a deceased individual, referred to as the “decedent.” Marcia Burrows, as guardian of Ava Burrows and Audrey Burrows (the children), objected to the probate of the decedent’s will and sought to set aside the accompanying revocable trust, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The Surrogate’s Court granted the petitioners’ motion for summary judgment, admitting the will to probate. The court considered witness testimonies, including the estate attorney and accountant, establishing the decedent’s lucidity during the will’s execution. It found the respondent’s claims lacked specificity and were speculative, leading to the dismissal of objections related to testamentary capacity and undue influence. Marcia Burrows appealed.

Published on: December 4, 2023

Court found that testator was of sound mind when he executed his will. In Matter of the Estate of Scher, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51819 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2008)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, being of “sound mind” to execute a will means that the testator must possess testamentary capacity. See EPTL § 3-1.1. This entails understanding the nature and consequences of making a will, knowing the extent of one’s property, and recognizing the natural beneficiaries. While a presumption of having a sound mind exists, a testator’s mental capacity can be challenged as it was in In Matter of the Estate of Scher, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51819 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2008). It’s important to note that common conditions associated with aging or mental health issues may not automatically invalidate a will, and the burden of proof rests on the party contesting testamentary capacity.

The probate proceeding involving the estate of Harold Scher, who passed away on February 11, 2006, has unfolded with a myriad of legal complexities and familial tensions. The surviving spouse, Leah Scher objects to probate, and the decedent’s sons from a previous marriage, Mark Scher and David Scher and the proponents of he will. Objectant seeks to challenge the probate of Harold Scher’s will dated July 12, 2005, citing reasons such as lack of due execution, lack of testamentary capacity, fraud, and undue influence. In response, Proponents have filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, aiming to dismiss Objectant’s objections and secure the probate of the contested will.

Background Facts

Published on: November 20, 2023

Surrogate’s Court considered whether it had the authority to probate a Florida-made where there was estate property in Queens. Matter of Steiner 2023 NY Slip Op 51224(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

When someone who lived elsewhere passes away but owns property in New York, a probate proceeding can be initiated in the Surrogate’s Court in the county where the property is located. SCPA § 206 [1], which grants the Surrogate’s Court jurisdiction over the estate of a non-domiciliary decedent who leaves property in the state. The statute ensures that the legal process unfolds in the county where the non-domiciliary decedent left property, streamlining the handling of assets and the distribution of the estate according to applicable laws.

In Matter of Steiner, 2023 NY Slip Op 51224(U), the decedent lived in Florida at the time of their death, but also had property in New York.

Background Facts

Published on: November 15, 2023

Appellate Division considered whether a objectant had standing to challenge the validity of a will. In Matter of Mancuso, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 52151 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2006)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, having standing to contest a will means having a direct and adverse interest in the probate proceedings. To challenge a will, an individual must demonstrate a pecuniary or financial stake in the estate that would be adversely affected by the will’s admission to probate. Simply being an heir or beneficiary does not automatically grant standing; the potential contestant must show that their rights or inheritance would be directly impacted by the probate of the contested will. The concept of standing ensures that only those with a genuine interest in the outcome can participate in will contests.

In Matter of Mancuso, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 52151 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2006), the dispute revolved around the denial of probate for Faye Mancuso’s 2000 will and the subsequent objections filed by Michael Pizzi, the will’s proponent, against the probate of an earlier will from 1987.

Background Facts