Long Island

Published on: December 13, 2012

Petitioner Claims Undue Influence in Estate Litigation Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 18 October 2007, a decedent died and is survived by his daughter-one and his granddaughters, A and B, the children of predeceased daughter-two, as his sole distributes. The decedent’s wife had predeceased him in September 2003. After the death of the decedent, the petitioner instituted an SCPA 2103 discovery proceeding. The petitioner is granddaughter B, who resides in Florida and to whom limited letters of administration (for estate administration purposes in an estate litigation) issued for the sole purpose of prosecuting the discovery proceeding and the respondent is daughter-one, who resides in Selden, Suffolk County. The property, subject of the proceeding, is a parcel of real property in Massapequa Park, Nassau County, and three bank accounts. Apparently, the real property was conveyed by the decedent to the respondent by deed dated 26 August 2004 and recorded 7 September 2004. The deed purported to convey all of the decedent’s right, title and interest in the property, except that it reserved a life estate in the decedent. At the time of decedent’s death, the bank accounts were held either jointly between decedent and respondent or solely by respondent.

In the SCPA 2103 proceeding, petitioner alleges that respondent was in a confidential relationship with the decedent and used that relationship to exert undue influence upon the decedent to convey the real property and change the title and/or beneficiary designations on the subject accounts. In opposition, respondent denies petitioner’s allegations and contends that all the transactions reflect the exercise of the decedent’s own free will. A New York Probate Lawyer said the respondent now moves for a summary judgment and for an order dismissing the petition and canceling a notice of pendency filed against the decedent’s former residence.

Published on: December 12, 2012

Court Rules on Complex Will Contest Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 2 October 2005, a resident of Sands Point died with a will dated 6 June 1996. He is survived by his wife, his children, A, B and C, and his granddaughter, X, the infant daughter of a predeceased son, D. On 21 September 2006, the will was submitted for probate (will contest proceeding) and letters testamentary issued to the decedent’s wife, the decedent’s daughter, A, and the decedent’s brother. On 23 April 2008, A and the decedent’s brother filed their account, which was subsequently amended and supplemented. Thereafter, a guardian ad litem was appointed by the court to represent the interests of X. The administration and the account reflect ongoing discord between the wife and the decedent’s other fiduciaries, A and the brother, dominated by conflict over the computation of the wife’s elective share. Ultimately, the parties executed a stipulation, receipt, release and refunding agreement which resolves all of the disputed issues other than the legal fee paid from estate assets to an attorney, who provided legal services to A and the brother at the onset of the administration but whom they later replaced. The stipulation provides that for purposes of calculating the wife’s elective share, the gross estate is valued at $2,115,942.00; that the expenses paid to date, plus the amount reimbursable to the wife for administration expenses which she incurred, total $438,817.00. The parties agreed that the fees of their current attorneys and that of the guardian ad litem be fixed by the court.

The Issues of the Case:

Published on: December 6, 2012

Plaintiff Seeks Summary Judgment in Property Dispute

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.

Long Island Probate 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: November 27, 2012

Court Makes Determination Where Multiple Wills Involved

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court, Special Term, in Queens County Part I. The case before the court is a motion made by the defendant for an order to dismiss the complaint and each of the causes of action against them on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter and that the complaint does not state facts that are sufficient to support a cause of action.

Case Background

A New York Probate Lawyer the plaintiff’s mother and the defendant are the children and only survivors of the decedent who passed away as a resident of Queens County. The plaintiff is the assignee of her mother who lives in Italy. During her life the decedent owned a piece of real property located in Corona.

Published on: November 23, 2012

Petitioner Claims Will Signed Under Undue Influence

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter dealing with the probate of an estate. The case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The petitioner is appealing an order that was made in the Surrogates Court of Queens County. The order was issued on the 29th of April, 1986 and denied probate of the purported will on the ground of undue influence and fraud.

Case Background

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.

Published on: November 18, 2012

Estate Attorneys Battle Over Fees

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter being heard in the Surrogate’s Court of Queens County. This is a contested probate proceeding in regard to the judicial settlement of the executor’s account, which was tried by the Court without a jury.

Case Background

The decedent of the estate died in September of 1981 and left behind a fairly modest estate. The estate consisted of $33,000 in personal property along with a house and a lot located in Queens County that was valued at $140,000. The decedent left behind a handwritten will that reads as more of a love letter to her estranged grandchildren. The will was admitted for probate in October of 1981. The terms of the will left the entire estate to her four grandchildren to be divided equally, with several small bequests to others.

Published on: October 31, 2012

Action Brought to Foreclose on Property

by Stephen Bilkis

The case deals with the estate of the decedent of which the distributees are unknown. The Supreme Court of the State of New York in Suffolk County is overseeing this particular matter.

Case Background

This action was commenced to foreclose a mortgage on real property located at 83 Orange Street, Central Islip, New York. The plaintiff filed a summons and complaint regarding this matter on the 14th of June, 2011.

Published on: October 24, 2012

Appellants Bring Appeal Regarding Codicil

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter dealing with the probate of a last will and testament. This case is being held in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Appeal

The appellants are appealing and order that was made in the Surrogate’s Court of Queens County. The order is dated the 27th of March, 2007 and grants the motion made by the respondent for leave to file objections to the codicil. The order also denied their cross motion for a decree to admit the will and the codicil to probate and to direct the letters testamentary and letters of trusteeship to be issued to them. The were also denied the approval of a stipulation of a settlement that they made with the American Society for Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Inc that was approved by the Attorney General of the State of New York.

Published on: October 22, 2012

Court Hears Will Contest

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Surrogates Court of Westchester County. The matter before the court deals with the estate of Leonard M. Greene, deceased. A New York Probate Lawyer said this is an incident that deals with the contested probate proceeding where the guardian ad litem for the infant distributes is seeking authorization to retain a medical expert to be paid from the estate.

Case History

Leonard Greene, the decedent, passed away on the first of December, 2006. He was 88 years old at the time he passed away. Survivors include seven children and two grandchildren. There is an issue of a predeceased child that was a passenger on United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11th, 2001.