Nassau

Published on: March 14, 2014

Court Hears Case Regarding Probate with Foreclosure Involved

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action transferred to the court from Supreme Court, Nassau County, one of several defendants, a Home Loan corporation, moves the court for an order dismissing the complaint against it. Plaintiffs opposed such motion and cross-move for summary judgment dismissing the answer, or, in the alternative, striking its fourth and seventh affirmative defenses.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that this action emanates from a foreclosure proceeding involving property located at Hempstead, New York. That property was owned by decedent, who died intestate in July 1986. Her brother administered her estate as voluntary administrator pursuant to SCPA Article 13. It appears, although it is not entirely clear, that he was the sole distributee and that the subject property vested in him immediately upon his sister’s death.

A New York Will Lawyer said the distribute brother then died testate in June 1994. Herein petitioner was appointed the voluntary administrator of the brother’s estate. The court’s file contains original will which devises and bequeaths all of his property to his cousin. The latter died in August 2000. There was no deed executed from the estate of the decedent sister to the brother, nor was there a deed from the estate of the brother to the petitioner. Although the brother’s original will was filed in the court by petitioner incident to the voluntary administration of the estate of the brother, the will was never offered for, or admitted to, probate. The plaintiffs are the non-marital children of the petitioner, the administrators of his estate, and claim to be his only distributees.

Published on: March 9, 2014

Petitioner Claims Fiduciary is Unable to Serve

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said the decedent died in January 2008 in Moscow, Russia, leaving a purported will which nominates the decedent’s attorney, and respondent, as executors. Preliminary letters testamentary issued to them by decree of this court in April 2008. The purported will bequeaths the decedent’s 75% interest in the Corporation to Petitioner, who allegedly owns the other 25% interest in the Corporation. The lawyer claims that he is the president of the Corporation and has been so since its formation in 2005. At the time of the decedent’s death, the Corporation owned real property and two automobiles. The purported will also include a $300,000.00 cash bequest to the respondent.

A New York Will Lawyer said that Petitioner is one of three women who were allegedly married to the decedent at the time of his death. She claims she married the decedent in December 2007, after his divorce from a former spouse became finalized in September 2007. The former spouse has filed suit in Russia attempting to invalidate the marriage between the petitioner and the decedent on the grounds that the divorce was invalid. The parties disagree over the status of the Russian proceeding. The preliminary executors contend that the Russian courts have determined that the divorce was not valid and that the determination is final. Both of them have filed a Notice of Right of Election in the probate proceeding.

Suffolk County Probate Lawyers said the petitioner has filed objections to the will, limited to the appointment of the fiduciaries. A guardian ad litem was appointed for the decedent’s child, who is eight years old. The child lives with the petitioner at the Peachtree Lane property. The guardian ad litem has filed his report wherein he has stated that he will not be filing objections to the purported will pursuant to a stipulation of settlement. Pursuant to the terms of that stipulation, the lawyer has agreed to assign to the son one-half of whatever she ultimately receives under the will. The court has authorized the guardian ad litem to sign the stipulation on behalf of his ward.

Published on: February 14, 2014

Court Rules on Accounting Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said this is an accounting proceeding in which the court is asked to determine whether assets of the estate located in New York should be distributed directly to legatees or whether they should be transmitted to the California administrator for distribution there. A New York Estate Lawyer said that, the deceased until three years prior to his death had been a New York resident. He had prepared a will here naming the Chase Manhattan Bank executor. He then moved to California, purchased real estate, established his residence and executed three codicils to the will. The codicils disposed of his California realty, enlarged the legacy of a niece, a California resident, dropped one of the named executors but retained the Chase Manhattan Bank. Most of the estate is here in New York.

A New York Estate Will Lawyer said that, after decedent’s death, the executor petitioned for the probate of the will and codicils in this jurisdiction. A contest ensued which was subsequently settled and the objections were withdrawn. Letters testamentary were then issued to the Chase Manhattan Bank. Shortly thereafter, the decedent’s niece, a legatee, applied to the Los Angeles Probate Court for letters of administration. That court granted letters to the Public Administrator of Los Angeles.

A Nassau Probate Lawyer said that, although the letters issued to the Chase Manhattan Bank were in form letters of original probate, it would appear that in reality the deceased being a resident of California the domiciliary administration is there and the administration here is therefore in its nature ancillary. The Public Administrator of Los Angeles as administrator c.t.a. has objected to the proposal of the executor to distribute the assets in its possession to the legatees directly rather than to remit them to the domiciliary representative in California for distribution by him.

Published on: January 2, 2014

Court Determines if Corporation is Sole Surviving Trustee of Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Estate Lawyer said that, the testator, while a resident of New York, executed a will in 1904 and a codicil thereto in 1911. He died a resident of Rhode Island in 1912 and the aforesaid instruments were admitted to probate as his will in that state. A New York Banking Corporation became successor trustee under the will in 1918 by appointment of the then surviving trustees.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, an accounting was had in Rhode Island in 1948 and the accounts of the banking corporation and an individual trustee were settled by a decree made on February 7, 1949. The instant proceeding is brought by the corporation as sole surviving trustee for the settlement of its accounts for a period subsequent to June 21, 1948 and for construction of the will. Other issues have been raised by respondents but it has been stipulated that the construction question shall be disposed of as a preliminary issue.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, certain testamentary trusts have terminated and remainder interests therein are payable pursuant to a direction of the testator which he expressed in the following language: to the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Thomas’ Church in the City of New York, for the purpose of erecting and maintaining, in such place as they may select, a building or buildings for the care of persons suffering from tuberculosis, to be called the Scott Memorial Home.’

Published on: December 21, 2012

Court Determines the Proximate Cause of Injuries

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs allegedly sustained personal injuries when the limb of a tree fell onto the motor vehicle in which they were traveling, in the defendant Village of Great Neck Estates. Thereafter, a New York Probate Lawyer said that, the plaintiffs commenced this action, alleging, inter alia, that the accident and their resulting injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of the Defendant County of Nassau in failing, among other things, to remove a dead and/or diseased tree. A Nassau Estate Litigation Lawyer said that, the defendant County subsequently cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not complied with the prior written notice requirement set forth in section 12-4.0 (e) of the Administrative Code of Nassau County and that it lacked both actual and constructive notice of the purported hazard. A Nassau Estate Litigation Lawyer said that, the defendant County additionally sought to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Lakeysha Agugbo on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The Supreme Court properly denied the County’s cross motion and held that: In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant County of Nassau appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), entered February 21, 2007, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Queens Probate Lawyers said the issue in this case is whether defendant is liable for damages, for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff on the ground that the resulting injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of the Defendant County in failing, among other things, to remove a dead and/or diseased tree.

The Court in deciding the case said that, Prior written notice statutes apply to “actual physical defects in the surface of a street, highway or bridge of a kind which do not immediately come to the attention of the town officers unless they are given actual notice thereof”. Accordingly, the Court held that, the prior written notice requirement invoked by the County does not apply to the facts of this case. Furthermore, the County failed to establish a prima facie case that it lacked actual and constructive notice of the alleged hazard in this case. Lastly, the Court held that, the plaintiff Lakeysha Agugbo was not required to establish that she sustained a serious injury in the subject accident as she did not allege any negligence on the part of the County in the use or operation of a motor vehicle. Instead, the allegations against the County related to premises liability. Therefore, the Court held that, the County does not qualify as a covered person within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (j) and § 5104 (a).

Published on: January 22, 2012

It is a sad occurrence when children are orphaned by both parents

by Stephen Bilkis

It is a sad occurrence when children are orphaned by both parents in a very short span of time. This is what happened when a modern painter of high reputation, died on February 25, 1970 followed by his wife on August 26, 1970. They left two children. The daughter was already of age and the son Christopher was still a minor. Before the mother died, she already gave the court her petition to contest the will as the children’s guardian saying the bequest to the charitable institution was more than one-half of the estate.

The term of the will, from what a Nassau County Estate Administration Lawyer found was that the wife gets $250,000 plus their house and all its contents. Five of his paintings are to be given to the Tate Gallery, London. The remaining part of his estate is bequeathed to an art foundation, a non-profit organization. It contained additional stipulation where if his wife dies, or they subsequently die, their children get $250,000 and the house in New York, including all its contents in equal shares.

The executors still followed through with the proceedings to determine if the claim for the will contest is valid. The daughter appeared with her lawyer and the son with his guardian. The court has found out the paintings of the testator is valued at several millions of dollars. There is another court hearing in which the contract executed for one-eighth of the decedents works was valued at $1,800,000 was still being contested as not enough. The court has said it is definitely more than half of the residuary estate of the testator that was assigned to charity. A Nassau County Estate Litigation Lawyer said the court gave out is a decision in favor of the children on July 13, 1970.

Published on: September 8, 2011

New Tax Law Could Benefit the Rich

by Stephen Bilkis

In spite of the stone-throwing and partisan pandering of last December’s revamp of US tax law, a New York Estate Planning Lawyer claims that there are a few hidden gems for families willing to dig through the rubble.

In particular, the New York Probate Lawyer singled out the new gift tax laws as a boon for those in high tax brackets.

The gift-tax exemption, the much maligned cap on individual giving, which has long been set at what some would consider a paltry one million dollars, has been raised dramatically for the next two years to the princely sum of five million dollars for individuals- or a whopping ten million dollars for individuals. Accountants in Nassau and Suffolk Counties are studying the new law and trying to find ways to help their clients.

Published on: August 21, 2011

Tax Law Expires Leaving Elderly at Risk

by Stephen Bilkis

Many senior citizens got an unpleasant surprise this February. Pensioners and seniors who rely on federal benefits to make ends meet were hit with the harsh new reality of the federal financial landscape when they discovered that their social security checks had been decreased. Although some were warned about the change in a letter that came with their check, many were left guessing.

We spoke with a New York City Estate Planning Lawyer, who explained the recent change in benefits. The reduction in the payout for senior citizens was an indirect result of the new tax relief act, which was enacted in tax year 2010. The new tax relief act cuts social security taxes for those still in the workforce, which federal economists hoped would help stimulate the economy by giving those who are still contributing to the marketplace more expendable income.

In order to make room for the new cuts, which according to the New York Estate Planning Lawyer amount to approximately a two percent drop in collected income by the IRS, the federal income taxes for those who are not working were raised, effectively lowering the payout for retirees and others who depend on social security benefits. Lawyers in Nassau and Suffolk Counties must be aware of these and any other changes that come down and effect Estate Administration.

Published on: July 21, 2011

Canadians on the Hook for US Estate Tax

by Stephen Bilkis

Think that Canadians are exempt from paying estate tax? One New York Estate Planning Lawyer says you could be wrong. Even Canadians who have never so much has set foot on US soil are on the hook for estate tax in many situations, if they don’t take the right precautions in advance.

According to United States tax laws, the estate tax can be levied against any person, regardless of nationality, who owns “US situs property”. This ambiguous term can be applied on a number of different levels, but broadly means anything that exists (either physically, or in some cases hypothetically), within the borders of the United States. A New York Estate Planning Lawyer gave us some examples of what might qualify for the estate tax. An obvious example would be either a house or a tract of land. Less obvious candidates for this tax would be things like bonds purchased from the US government, or stocks in a company headquartered in the United States. Non US residents who own such property can be subjected to the estate tax at the same rate as a US citizen would be. Lawyers in Manhattan and Nassau Count will be glad to counsel their Canadian clients.

For this reason, it’s critically important that as a Canadian citizen you carefully evaluate your tax exposure well in advance. Because ties between the US and Canada are so close, it can be very difficult to sort out your assets, and make an accurate determination, so consider calling a New York Estate Planning Lawyer, who can help walk you through the process.