Queens

Published on: July 6, 2026

Estate Co-Owner Could Not Eject Fellow Beneficiaries Without Showing Sale Was Necessary for Estate Administration: Matter of Pisarik (Roma), 2024 NY Slip Op 50363(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Queens County Surrogate’s Court considered whether an executor could evict fellow beneficiaries from estate property in order to sell the property. In Matter of Pisarik, the court examined the limits of an executor’s authority when beneficiaries become co-owners of inherited real estate and whether estate administration justified removing those occupants from the property.

Background

Michael Roma died in 2022, leaving a will that was later admitted to probate. His primary asset was a two-family home located in Corona, Queens. Under the residuary clause of the will, the property passed in equal shares to the decedent’s niece, Ramona Taveras Pisarik, who also served as executor, and to the decedent’s longtime tenants and friends, Maria Castillo and Santo Castillo.

Published on: July 3, 2026

Bank That Wrongfully Released Estate Funds Could Not Undo Default Judgment: Matter of Rosenblatt (Kozerska), 2026 NY Slip Op 50969(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

When someone dies, money held in the person’s bank accounts does not automatically become available to family members. In most cases, the bank must wait until an executor or administrator has been appointed and presents the appropriate court-issued authority, such as Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration, before releasing estate funds. If a bank distributes money without proper authority, it may be required to repay the estate. In Matter of Rosenblatt, the Queens County Surrogate’s Court considered whether a bank could set aside a default judgment entered against it after it failed to respond to a turnover proceeding seeking the return of estate funds.

Background

Pauline Kozerska died in January 2020. She had two bank accounts at JPMorgan Chase Bank. Although the accounts had originally been opened jointly with her father, he had died several years earlier, making Ms. Kozerska the sole owner.

Published on: April 3, 2026

Surviving Co-Executor May Continue Administering Estate Without New Letters: Matter of Federico, 2024 NY Slip Op 50237(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

When a will names two executors, both are responsible for administering the estate. But what happens if one executor dies before the estate has been fully settled? Does the surviving executor have to return to the Surrogate’s Court to obtain new Letters Testamentary, or can the executor continue handling the estate using the authority already granted?

This question can arise during the sale of estate property or other transactions when a bank, title company, or another third party insists on additional court documents before allowing the transaction to proceed. Matter of Federico addressed whether a surviving co-executor needed new Letters Testamentary after the other co-executor died during the administration of the estate.

Background

Published on: June 25, 2016

Contestant Made Application for Order Vacating Demand for Bill of Particulars

by Stephen Bilkis

The contestant has made application to the Court for an order vacating and setting aside the proponent’s demand for a bill of particulars, or in the alternative, modifying said demand, and for such other, further and different relief as to the Court may seem necessary and proper. The proponent’s demand for a bill of particulars is directed to the allegations of fraud and undue influence in paragraph 3 of the contestant’s objections.

A Kings County Probate Lawyer said that, the application will be treated as though the proponent were seeking a bill by motion in the first instance, since it calls upon the Court to determine the nature and extent of the items, if any, which the contestant should furnish to the proponent.

It is too well settled to require citation of authority, that the proponent in a contested probate may properly require the particularization of the charges of fraud and undue influence asserted to defeat the probate. The real controversy here revolves around the extent to which such particulars ought to be furnished.

Published on: June 15, 2016

Court Discusses Powers of a Surrogate

by Stephen Bilkis

This case was brought before the Court of Appeals of New York.

The issue here is the power of the surrogate to require an administrator’s bond in double the value of the personal estate in this state of JDP, who at the time of his death was a resident of New Jersey, as a condition to the grant of ancillary administration.

At the time of JDP’s death, his personal estate consisted of personal effects with a value of about $2,500 in New Jersey, and stocks and securities with a value of about $40,000, deposited with a safe-deposit company in the city of Brooklyn.

Published on: June 10, 2016

Petitioner Files for Custody of Child

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a proceeding for the custody of minors under Article 6 of the Family Court Act brought before the Family Court of Kings County.

The petitioner is the natural mother of a child born in 1976 in Brooklyn.

The respondent is the child’s paternal grandmother who was appointed in December 1977by the Surrogate of Kings County as guardian of the person for the child.

Published on: April 22, 2016

Court Decides Case Regarding Interpretation of Will

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an application by the Public Administrator of the County of Kings for a construction of testatrix’ will and other relief. Testatrix died on December 27, 1919 leaving a will dated February 11, 1905 which was duly admitted to probate in this Court on June 18, 1920. Except for the printed portions of the form used, the instrument was entirely written by pen and ink. After providing for the payment of her lawful debts, testatrix devised all her property, real and personal, to her friend, who was also named sole executrix with the further proviso as follows: ‘after Death the Balance what is left go to my Brothers or their heirs. (naming them) To be Equally divided Between my Brothers or heirs of my Brothers’ (italics, capitalization and spelling as in original).

It appears that upon testatrix’ death took possession of real and personal property of testatrix and by conveyances, transfers, assignments, sales, and alienations, by said testatrix individually and as executrix, the assets of the estate were disposed of among the several persons named in the petition herein. The question posed is whether by testatrix’ will she took a fee or a life estate with or without power of alienation or disposition.

Published on: April 17, 2016

Court Decides Material Provisions of a Will Regarding Real Property

by Stephen Bilkis

The testator left him surviving his widow, three sons, and one daughter, who were his sole heirs at law and next of kin. One of the sons, died June 29, 1900, leaving him surviving three children, one of whom is the plaintiff in this action; the widow, died September 22, 1904, a little over four years after the death of her son, the father of the plaintiff.

At the time of the testator’s death his children were under age and unmarried. The testator died seized of certain real estate in the states of New York, New Jersey, and Vermont. The plaintiff brought this action to partition lands in the county of Kings in this state, asserting she had an interest therein for the reason that under the terms of the will of the interest of her father, one of the remainder men, was subject to be divested by his death during the lifetime of his mother, the life tenant, and upon the death of the latter, having predeceased her, plaintiff with her sisters who were defendants in this action became vested with the share of their father, under the will. The trial justice decided in favor of plaintiff. The judgment entered upon that decision was reversed by the Appellate Division, and the complaint dismissed. Plaintiff and her sisters, defendants, appeal to this court.

Published on: January 24, 2016

Petitioner Asks for Interpretation of Residuary Clause

by Stephen Bilkis

The residuary clause of the will of the decedent dated December 2, 1999, which was admitted to probate on August 16, 2001, reads as follows: “All the rest, residue and remainder of the property which I may own at the time of my death, real and personal, and whosesoever the same may be situate.” There is no more. The name of the intended beneficiary of the residuary is missing. As a practical matter, the residuary clause amounts to only 10% of the estate, since the will made pre-residuary bequests of 90% of the net estate.

The executrix of the will, has petitioned for construction of the will by reading the residuary clause to be the same as decedent’s prior will dated June 18, 1997. The residuary clause of the 1997 will provided: “All the rest, residue and remainder of the property which I may own at the time of my death, real and personal, and whosesoever the same may be situate I give, devise and bequeath to my nephew, per stirpes. In the event that my nephew, does not survive me, his share shall go to his wife.”

The decedent’s nephew died on November 25, 2000, without issue and the decedent died on November 30, 2000. The persons who would take the decedent’s estate in intestacy are a niece, and a great nephew. The decedent’s niece has filed a consent to the relief requested in the petition for construction. The decedent’s nephew defaulted in appearing on the return day of the proceeding. The attorney-draftsperson of the will, has filed an affidavit stating that when the 1997 will was redrafted in 1999, using computer software “some lines from the residuary clause were accidentally deleted.”

Published on: January 18, 2016

Petitioner Claims She is Entitled to Decedent’s Net Estate and Letters Testamentary

by Stephen Bilkis

In this probate proceeding petitioner claims that under the terms of the propounded instrument she is entitled to decedent’s net estate and to letters testamentary. The respondents have appeared and filed their consent to probate the instrument, but dispute petitioner’s claim. A construction is requested to determine whether the provisions of paragraph ‘Fourth’ are operative and dispose of decedent’s estate.

The instrument is a joint and mutual will of decedent, and her husband. He died first, on April 30, 1958, leaving only jointly owned property, and his will was therefore not probated. She died on December 13, 1958 leaving personal property. By said will each devised and bequeathed to the survivor the entire net estate, but made no alternative disposition in the event he or she predeceased, except as set forth in paragraph ‘Fourth’ of the will. It is therein provided that in the event the deaths of both of them would occur ‘simultaneously or approximately so, or as a result of a common accident or calamity, or under circumstances causing doubt as to which of us survived the other,’ then the entire net estate was devised and bequeathed to the sister of the decedent herein, and in identical eventualities nominated and appointed her executrix ‘of this our joint and mutual will and testament.’

In another case, this is an application for limited letters of temporary administration. Decedent executed a will in Ireland which was witnessed by the manager for the United States Lines in Ireland and the American Consul in Cork. Beside a small bequest to a friend, the entire residuary is bequeathed to petitioner described as decedent’s granddaughter. The will does not name an executor. The granddaughter petitions for probate of the will and for letters of administration c. t. a. She makes this motion for limited letters of temporary administration so that she can commence an action against the United States Lines before the statute of limitations runs out. This motion is opposed by Agnes Schmidt, one of two sisters who are distributees of decedent, on the ground that the wrongful death suit is ‘exclusively for the benefit of the decedent’s wife, husband, parent, child or dependent relative.’ She argues that petitioner is none of these and that under section 118 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, letters should issue to a distributee, namely, herself, so that she might bring the action against the steamship line.