Brooklyn

Published on: August 20, 2013

Court Decides Property Ownership in Light of Two Separate Wills

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said in an action transferred to this court from Supreme Court, Nassau County, defendant moves for an order directing the County Clerk of Nassau County to cancel a notice of pendency filed in connection with the action and for an order quieting title in the defendant and for such other relief as to the court seems just.

A Nassau County Estate lawyer said that defendant is the grandson of plaintiff, the decedent in the probate proceedings currently pending before this court. Decedent’s daughter is representing the estate in the Supreme Court action in her capacity as preliminary executor. A brief recitation of the essential allegations in the pending proceedings and the identities of the parties involved may facilitate an understanding of the court’s decision on the instant motion.

The decedent and her husband took title to the subject premises in New York by deed. The deed identifies the grantees as the spouses thus presumptively creating a tenancy by the entirety. The husband died in November 1996. A New York Will Lawyer said that assuming the validity of the tenancy by the entirety, the decedent became the sole owner of the premises upon the husband’s death.

Published on: August 2, 2013

Petitioner Challenges Validity of Tax Assessment

by Stephen Bilkis

In this estate case, New York Probate Lawyer said that a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review real property tax assessments for tax year 2008 and action for a judgment declaring that certain undeveloped parcels of real property owned by the petitioner/plaintiff were unlawfully assessed at nine times their values, the petitioner/plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated July 15, 2009, as granted the motion of the respondents/defendants, as Assessor for the Town of Goshen, and the Town of Goshen, in which the respondent/defendant School District joined, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss the petition/complaint insofar as asserted against each of those respondents/defendants, and dismissed the proceeding and action insofar as asserted against each of them.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, also in an action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant 1299 Eastern, LLC, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to renew his opposition to its prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, which had been determined in a prior order dated August 11, 2006, and upon renewal, vacated the order dated August 11, 2006, and denied the motion for summary judgment.

Long Island Probate Lawyers said the issue in this case is whether the subject property of the estate were unlawfully assessed.

Published on: July 7, 2013

Court Discusses Criminal Intention in Will Forgery Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This was a certiorari case filed before the court by the petitioner, a former war veteran, who was charged and indicted for conversion of government property.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the large tract of Michigan land was used by government for practice bombing range where the Air Force dropped simulated bombs at the ground targets. The range was also known for extensive hunting of deer. The used bomb casings were cleared from the targets and were piled up and dumped in heaps for several years and was exposed to weather conditions and became rusted.

The petitioner went deer hunting in the area and salvaged some of the casings as a means to lessen his expenses for the trip. He loaded three tons of the used bomb casings into his truck and flattened them by a tractor at a nearby farm. He sold the flattened casings to a market. He was a fruit stand operator and a trucker and scrap iron collector.

Published on: December 25, 2012

Court Discusses Liberal Interpretation of Lien Law

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant Neptune Estates, LLC (“Neptune”), owner of 380 Neptune Avenue, Brooklyn,, NY (“Property”), entered a contractor’s agreement with defendant Big Poll Construction, Inc. (“Big Poll”) whereby Big Poll would act as the general contractor on a construction project on the Property (“Project”). In February 2009, plaintiff entered two subcontractor agreements with Big Poll whereby plaintiff agreed to perform the structural steel work, masonry, and concrete slabs on the Project.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that Neptune alleges that on or about February 22, 2009, Neptune removed Big Poll for cause and hired non-party Future City Plus, Inc. (“Future City”) to act as the new general contractor on the Project. A construction contract between Neptune and Future City was executed. On March 15, 2009, plaintiff entered two subcontractor agreements with Future City whereby plaintiff was to be paid $181,000 and $191,000, respectively, for the structural steel and masonry and concrete slabs on the Project. Neptune alleges that Future City subsequently terminated these subcontracts with plaintiff for cause on December 15, 2009.

A Kings Estate Litigation lawyer said that, exactly nine months after Future City entered the contractor agreement with Neptune, plaintiff filed a mechanic’s lien (“January Lien”) against the Property and, pursuant to Lien Law § 9(3), plaintiff identified the person with whom the contract was made as “Big Poll & Son Construction, LLC and Future City Plus, Inc.”. After Neptune moved to discharge the January Lien, Justice Bunyan vacated the January Lien without prejudice in a short form order with the consent of the parties. The order indicated that “a new Mechanic’s Lien may be filed in a timely manner. This is without costs to any party.” On April 1, 2010, plaintiff filed a second mechanic’s lien (“Lien”) and identified the person with whom the contract was made as “Big Poll & Son Construction, LLC. There may be a claim against the successor on the project, Future City Plus, Inc., if this company agreed to assume the obligation of its predecessor.” This is the only substantive change from the January Lien other than the identity of the plaintiff’s attorney and the signatories to the Lien.

Published on: December 23, 2012

Court Rules on Complex Estate Litigation Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff, an undocumented alien from Ecuador, immigrated to the United States in 2000, and was hired as a construction worker by the third-party defendant, City Wide Building Corp. Plaintiff was working on a construction project in which town houses were being built by the defendant Wildflower Estate Developers, Inc., the owner of the property, which acted as its own general contractor. Wildflower had hired City Wide to do carpentry work, and had hired the defendant Classic Construction to do roofing work. A New York Probate Lawyer said the plaintiff was performing his work while standing on a makeshift scaffold, which consisted of two layers of 2-inch-by-10-inch boards, supported at the ends by beams which were part of the structure being built. A bundle of shingles weighing roughly 80 pounds, which had been left on the sloped roof near an opening that had been created for a skylight, fell through the opening and struck the plaintiff in the back. The impact caused the boards on which the plaintiff was standing to break, and the plaintiff fell approximately 25 feet to the basement floor. The plaintiff sustained severe injuries, which rendered him a paraplegic.

A New York Estate Litigation Lawyer said that, the plaintiff commenced this action against Wildflower and Classic, asserting causes of action based on common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The defendants asserted cross claims for indemnification against each other. Wildflower commenced a third-party action for indemnification against City Wide, and City Wide asserted a counterclaim against Wildflower and a cross claim against Classic.

Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of the defendants’ liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). Wildflower cross-moved for summary judgment on its cross claims against Classic, on its third-party cause of action against City Wide, and dismissing the complaint insofar as it sought damages for lost wages.

Published on: December 5, 2012

Court Determines Motion for Summary Judgment is Premature

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This is a contested probate proceeding involving the deceased. The appellant, is appealing an order that was made by the Surrogates Court of Westchester County. The order was dated the 24th of July, 2009 and denied his motion for summary judgment as premature. A New York Probate Lawyer said the order dismissed his objections to admit the will for probate. He was also imposed with costs and sanctions.

Court Discussion

When a summary judgment is denied the party is entitled to further discovery when it is apparent that there may be facts to support the opposing party’s position, but they cannot be stated at that particular point in time.

Published on: November 27, 2012

Court Questions Validity of Will

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Surrogate’s Court of Kings County. The case before the court is a proceeding to probate a copy of a testamentary instrument as a lost will. The petitioners have moved to withdraw their petition and have letters of administration issued instead.

Case Background

The decedent passed away in October of 2000. The propounded instrument was executed in March of 1995. In the instrument the decedent left her estate to her two sisters or the survivor. Her older sister was named as the executor and her younger sister was named as the successor. Her older sister passed away and as a result the entire estate passed to her younger sister in its entirety.

Published on: November 26, 2012

Court Makes Ruling When Original Will Missing

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter dealing with a last will and testament. The case is being heard in the Surrogate’s Court of Queens County. The decedent passed away on the 17th of March, 1956. The decedent was survived by four adult children. A copy of a will was found among her affects and is alleged to be written by the decedent on the 26th of July, 1938.

The will that was found left the amount of $200 to a priest for the masses to be performed for her and her deceased husband. The rest of the estate was to be divided between the four children.

Probate Proceeding

Published on: November 24, 2012

Court Looks at Proper Jurisdiction for Estate Administration Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The case is being heard in the Surrogates Court of New York County. The motion before the court is made on behalf of the widow and minor child of the testator to dismiss the petition for probate in the interest of justice on the ground that a French forum would be convenient and a New York probate would be inconvenient.

In the petition for probate it is stated that the assets of the estate are between $200,000 and $300,000. However, during oral argument for the estate the estate is said to be worth between one and two million dollars.

Case Discussion

Published on: November 19, 2012

Defendanat Seeks Declaratory Judgment to Quiet Title

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs have started this action seeking a declaration that they are the rightful owners of a premise. They further seek a declaration that they gained the title of the premise by an adverse possession and they permanently enjoin the defendant from evicting them from the premises. A temporary restraining order was issued by this court enjoining the defendant from proceeding with their previous holdover proceeding pending a hearing in this matter.

Plaintiffs Argument

A New York Probate Lawyer said to support their case the plaintiffs submit an affidavit that contains the following allegations: all of the alleged property was bequeathed to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have lived at the subject premises for more than 40 years. They have paid all of the taxes for the property, as well as all other charges as well as the insurance for the premises.