New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog

Published on: December 16, 2021

Court denies petition for summary judgement approving compromise petition allocating the entire settlement to wrongful death where there was evidence of conscious pain and suffering. Matter of Qyra 2014 NY Slip Op 24187

by Stephen Bilkis

In the Matter of Qyra, the Surrogate’s Court considered an issue related to the allocation of the money award in a wrongful death lawsuit. On February 25, 2010, while walking in Central Park, Elmaz Qyra was struck by a tree branch and died. The administrator (personal representative) of his estate filed a lawsuit to recover damages and was awarded a $3,000,000 settlement. The administrator petitioned the Surrogate’s Court to issue a decree allocating the entire settlement to wrongful death. The objectant argued that a portion should be allocated to personal injury.

When someone dies as a result of negligence, the personal representative of the decedent’s estate can bring a lawsuit to recover losses suffered by the decedent as well as losses suffered by the decedent’s family. If the lawsuit is successful and money is awarded, the Surrogate’s Court must determine how to allocate the money- to personal injury, to wrongful death, or a combination of both. The manner of allocation determines to whom the money is distributed.

Sums that are allocated to personal injury compensate the injured party—the decedent—for the conscious pain and suffering they suffered because of the negligence. Since the money awarded for personal injury belongs to the decedent, it is considered probate property and is added to their probate estate. Sums that are allocated to wrongful death compensate the decedent’s next of kin for the losses they suffered because of the negligence. That money is distributed directly to the next of kin. It is never a part of the decedent’s estate.

Published on: December 1, 2021

Surrogate’s Court considered whether a will was properly executed where the witnesses were not in the presence of the testator when they executed the attestation clauses and the witness affidavits. Matter of William Ryan, 2021 NY Slip Op 21010

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, during a 1404 examination of the two execution witnesses, Surrogate’s Court had to determine if the decedent’s will had been properly witnessed given the unusual execution ceremony. For a will to be valid in New York, it must be properly executed. This means that the will must be signed at the end by the testator or at the direction of the testator in their presence. It must also be signed by at least two witnesses in the presence of the testator. Under SCPA § 1404, before a will can be admitted to probate, at least two of the attesting witnesses must appear in court and be questioned by the court.

In Matter of William Ryan the testator was in poor health at the time his will was drafted. In addition, because of COVID, there were restrictions on gatherings. As a result, attorneys found themselves conducting business differently in they would under pre-pandemic conditions. The original plan was for the will to be executed in the parking lot of the office of the attorney who drafted the will. However, Ryan’s conditioned worsened before that happened, and he was hospitalized. The hospital had implemented strict rules to minimize the spread of COVID. As a result, guests were not allowed to visit patients. In order to execute the will, a hospital social worker had to assist.

The social worker delivered the will to Ryan and was present when he signed it. The video feature of a cell phone was used along with a computer at the attorney’s office so that the attorney and the witnesses could be “present” when Ryan signed the will. Immediately after Ryan signed the will, the original was driven back to the attorney’s office where the two witnesses executed the attestation clause and the witness affidavit. The attestation clause and affidavit had been stapled to the original will in a will.

Published on: November 15, 2021

Creditor objected to allocation of wrongful death award. In re Estate of Domingo Torres, Sr. (2002)

by Stephen Bilkis

While the case of In re Estate of Domingo Torres, Sr. turns on the narrow issue of whether to grant the New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) more time to file objections to the account filed by the personal representative, here we will look at why the DSS wants the Surrogate’s Court to hear its objections.

At the time that Torres passed away, he owed the DSS $87.903.76. As part of the estate administration process, New York law requires that the personal representative pay debts owed by the decedent out of estate assets before assets are distributed to the decedent’s beneficiaries or heirs. However, debts can only be paid to the extent there are funds in the estate to do.

As required, the DSS filed a claim against the decedent’s estate for $87.903.76. Even though it appeared as if the claim was valid and timely filed, it was denied simply because the estate did not have the money to pay it. However, the personal representative filed a lawsuit against the party responsible for Torres’ death and recovered $300,000. From that money, the DSS expected to be able to recover the money it was owed.

Published on: November 1, 2021

Court found no undue influence where the decedent’s testamentary plan is a natural progression. Probate Proceeding, Estate of Dorris (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

On May 21, 2017, at age 86, decedent E. Lowell Dorris passed away testate. He was survived by 4 nieces and a nephew. However, in his will, he named Luis Freddy Molano as his sole beneficiary. The value of the estate was around $350,000. The decedent’s four nieces initiated a will contest, alleging undue influence. Benjamin Robinson, the executor and also the attorney who drafted the will, requested that the court dismiss the objection of the nieces.

A court will not allow a will that was made under undue influence to be probated. Thus, if the nieces prevailed and the will was found to be invalid, the court would either probate a prior valid will or the court would declare the decedent to be intestate. If the decedent is intestate and the nieces are the decedent’s intestate heirs, the nieces would share in the decedent’s estate.

Undue influence means that the testator drafted a will because someone illegally influenced them to do so. In other words, the terms of the will do not reflect the wishes of the testator, but the wishes of the influencer. The following circumstances tend to show the existence of undue influence:

Published on: September 15, 2021

The special needs of a disabled child should be considered in determining her share of her father’s wrongful death lawsuit proceeds. Conejero v. LaJam, 190 Misc. 2d 393 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2002)

by Stephen Bilkis

When someone passes away due to the negligent actions of another person or entity, a wrongful death action can be filed by their personal representative to seek damages. Depending on the specifics of the case, if the lawsuit is successful, the amount awarded can be allocated either as a wrongful death award, a personal injury award, or a combination of both. The manner in which the money is classified determines how it is ultimately distributed.

Money that is allocated as personal injury is awarded to compensate the decedent for the conscious pain and suffering they experienced from the injury or circumstances that resulted in their death. It includes physical pain, even if suffered for a very short time prior to death. It also includes fear, shock, and anguish experienced by the decedent as a result of the circumstances that caused their death. Because personal injury money is the decedent’s loss, it is added to their probate estate. Just like any other asset that is part of a decedent’s probate estate, personal injury money can be used to pay estate debt. Any money leftover would be distributed to the decedent’s beneficiaries and heirs as required by their will or New York law.

Money that is allocated as wrongful death is awarded to the family of the decedent to compensate for economic losses they will suffer as a result of the loss of the decedent’s financial support. Because money allocated to wrongful death is to compensate losses suffered by the decedent’s family (distributees), that money goes directly to the appropriate family members and not to the estate.

Published on: September 1, 2021

Through a kinship hearing the court determined that decedent had children who were entitled to his estate. In re D.W.L, 71 Misc.3d 1204(A) (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

Leaving a will is the best way to ensure that property left in your estate after you pass away goes to the people you want to receive it. Unfortunately, not everyone leaves a will. Intestate succession rules are in place to determine who is entitled to a decedent’s estate in the absence of a will. In other words, if you do not leave a will, New York provides a will for you. Under New York’s law of intestate succession, a decedent’s heirs are always their surviving spouse or children, if any. Other relatives, such as parents and siblings would only be entitled to a decedent’s estate if the decedent passed way without either a surviving spouse or children.

In the case of In re D.W.L., the decedent passed away intestate in February 2007 at the age of 33 due to accidental carbon dioxide poisoning. He was unmarried. He was survived by his mother. There were also 3 minor children who claimed (through their mothers) that the decedent was their father.

In September 2007 the decedent’s mother filed a petition for letters of limited administration. Initially she included in the petition that the decedent had 3 children. A year later she amended her petition to state that he had no children. This is significant because if he had no children, his mother would be his next of kin and entitled to his entire estate. On the other hand, if he had children, they would be entitled to his entire estate and his mother would not be entitled to any portion of his estate.

Published on: July 1, 2021

Court considered whether after-acquired assets must pass by intestacy. In re Estate of Keough, 2021 NY Slip Op 3948 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the Appellate Division considered whether assets acquired by a testator’s estate after the death of the testator should be distributed pursuant to the terms of a will or by the laws of intestate succession.

The purpose of a creating a will is to enable the testator to determine who gets their property after they pass away. Wills can be very general, e.g. leaving all property to one person such as spouse. Or, they can be very detailed, e.g. leaving specific property such as real estate, jewelry, or cash to different people. The common thread is that the testator’s intent is to leave their property, meaning whatever they have at the time of their death, to other people.

There are instances, however, when the decedent acquires property after their death. Because they had no knowledge of the property prior to their death, and certainly not at the time they made their will, they could not have intended to dispose of that property in their will.

Published on: June 28, 2021

Court rules that proof is required to establish joint bank account right of survivorship- In re Najjar, 2021 NY Slip Op 3777 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the Supreme Court of New York considered whether a joint bank account is estate property. It is commonly believed that with a joint bank account there is always the right of survivorship. This would mean that when one of the joint owners passes away, the proceeds of a joint bank account bypasses probate and automatically goes to the remaining joint owner. Under New York law, this is not the case.

In In re Najjar, the decedent and the respondent were joint owners of 4 bank accounts. The petitioner initiated estate litigation because she felt that money in the bank accounts was the property of the decedent alone and, upon her death, became the property of the decedent’ estate. The petition sought a declaration that the money in the joint bank accounts property belonged to the estate. Further, because the petition was also a co-executor of the decedent’s estate, the petitioner accused the respondent of unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty. In response, the respondent sought summary judgment declaring that as the joint owner of the accounts, she was entitled to all of the money.

Under New York law, upon the death of one of the owners, ownership of the joint bank account does not automatically remain with the surviving owner. New York banking law states that a joint bank account creates a joint tenancy with right of survivorship only when the signature card for the account indicates the parties intended the right of survivorship to apply. Banking Law § 675 (a). In Najjar, the signature card did not have the right of survivorship designation. Thus, the respondent was not able to establish that under Banking Law § 675 there existed a statutory presumption of the survivorship.

Published on: June 1, 2021

Assets awarded from a wrongful death are not subject to a decedent’s creditors. In re Mcmillan-Hoyte, 2021 NY Slip Op 21090 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

Estate administration has two main goals. One goal is to distribute the assets of a decedent according to the terms of their will. If there is no will, assets are distributed according to the law of intestate succession. The other goal is to pay the decedent’s debts as well as expenses related to estate administration. These two goals can be at odds with each other, particularly if there are not enough assets in the estate to pay all of the debts and also leave the beneficiaries and heirs with much or anything at all.

While the testator’s goal may have been to provide for their family or other beneficiaries, the law generally puts the interests of creditors ahead of the interests of beneficiaries and heirs. Creditors are paid first according to a statutory order of priority. Beneficiaries and heirs receive distributions only if there are assets left over in the estate after creditors are paid and after expenses of administrations are paid.

There are potentially several different types of debts owed by a decedent at the time of their death or expenses incurred during administration. Under SCPA § 1811(1), debt must be paid according to the following order of priority.

Published on: May 15, 2021

Court refused to overturn default judgment in an estate administrator appointment case. Buie v. Buie, 186 A.D.3d 1516 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

Generally, when someone passes away, their estate must go through an administration process that starts with submitting the decedent’s will, if any, to the Surrogate’s Court, along what a petition for appointment of the administrator or executor. The law requires that interested parties must be notified that the estate is in the process of being opened, that a will has been filed, that someone is seeking to be appointed administrator of the estate. Interested parties must be notified so that they can be heard on matters related to the process, including the appointment of the administrator.

In Buie, the decedent died intestate in 2004. This means that she did not leave a will nominating someone to serve as the executor of her estate. As a result, based on a statutory order of priority, any interested party has the right to file a petition with the Surrogate’s Court to receive letters of administrator and move forward with the tasks required to settle the decedent’s estate.

The decedent was survived by 5 children. Twelve years later, in 2016, one of the decedent’s children, Deborah, filed a petition with the court for letters of administration for the decedent’s estate, which included a single-family house in Brooklyn and an adjacent vacant lot.