Published on:

NY Slip Op 05266

The petitioner brought this case to enforce an oral agreement that would be void because of the statute of frauds. The petitioner’s grounds for this action are unconscionability of the statute of frauds. The court agrees that when promissory estoppel is satisfied it would be unconscionable and egregious to rely on the statute of frauds. Nonetheless, the court concludes that the petitioner can’t rely on this doctrine because the application of the statute of frauds would inflict injury on the petitioner and would be unfair. The court felt that while it would be unfair, it was not unconscionable.

The decedent owned an apartment building. His grandsons contend that before 2006, the had helped their grandfather with maintenance and snow removal on the property. Later, the grandfather asked the petitioners about taking over management duties of the property.

Published on:

BD is the brother of the decedent AR and the co-executor of his estate. He seeks a judicial construction of his brother’s will. He was left a 13-year-old cat and $6,000 for the care of the cat. If he is successful in this case, he would stand to receive $700,000.

AR stated in his will, he stated he loved siblings dearly but he made no bequest to them. He stated that the rest of the estate should be put in the Dawe family trust. The purpose of the will and trust was to fund a genealogical website.

To avoid the rule of perpetuities, after that, the money should go to a library in Connecticut.

Published on:

This is an appeal from an Order dated 1/11/16. The order vacated the determination of an order dated 2015, denying a motion by CB and ME for a summary judgment dismissing BSB’s objection to probate. The Order is affirmed.

The case involves the will of FS. The will was signed in 1976, and the decedent passed away in 1980. This proceeding was filed in 1980. BSB was the daughter of the decedent and signed a consent to probate on 10/8/80. The will was admitted to probate 11/13/80.

One of the defendant’s grandchildren moved to vacate the probate because several distributes weren’t named in the probate petition.

Published on:

Matter of A.

NY Slip Op 05842

The co-executor of the estate petitioned the court pursuant to 2103 to determine if certain funds were withheld from the estate of A. This appeal is from 2 Surrogate Court orders brought by A.S. Those orders denied AS her cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the petition regarding two bank accounts. This appeal is dismissed. The second order superseded the first. One bill of costs is awarded to petitioner, payable to A.S.

Published on:

In re the Probate Matter of WB

BB was the decent in this matter and died at 95 years old with 2 daughters (TK and MA), which were the two distributes of her estate.

SV, a niece in law, submitted an instrument dated August 16, 2007, as BB’s last will and testament. The will stated that everything be divided between the petitioner and her husband, EV, a nephew in law. The decedent expressly left her two children out of the will. Understandably, both children filed objections to the validity of the document. They contend that the document wasn’t properly executed, it was a mistake and produced under fraud and duress. Petitioner moved for summary judgment. There was a cross-motion filed compelling discovery and arguing that triable issues of fact exist.

Published on:

The respondent MJP holdings moves for an order dismissing the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and because a prior action is pending for the same issue in a different court.

Despite the fact that the proceeding was heard on 6/1/18, the history of this case goes back 40 years, starting with the death of the decedent’s grandmother CP. That litigation was only settled in 2017. Her 2 children have passed away. The estate of one child, J, is in litigation. The case with the other child, M, is being litigated as well.

The parties involved here are the petitioner, who is the executor of the decedent’s estate, the grandchild of the decedent, and daughter’s husband, and MJD Holdings.

Published on:

NY Slip Op 02473


This hearing was made pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law Article 81. The purpose was to appoint guardians to a person and property for Mr. & Mrs. D, who appealed a previous decision whereby the Petitioners had successfully requested to set aside a deed from July 19, 2013 because of undue influence and incompetence, and to declare the judgment void.

Contact Information