Probate & Estate Litigation

Published on: September 15, 2012

Court Rules on Estate Pursuant to Suffolk County Tax Act

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Special Term of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. The matter deals with Randolph Cowan versus Rose McVey, et al. This is a proceeding under article 15 of Real Property Law. A judgment has been entered that determined the plaintiff’s absolute ownership in the subject premises. The State of New York has moved for the judgment to be vacated, for the right to intervene, and for other relief as well.

Case Background

A New York Probate Lawyer said the complaint in this action shows that on the 17th of November, 1958, the plaintiff obtained an interest in a premises located in this county. The purchase of the premises was made at a tax sale. ON the 16th of November, 1961, the title was vesting in the State of New York as a result of appropriation. A deed was delivered to the plaintiff by the County Treasurer of Suffolk County on the 28th of November, 1961.

Published on: September 13, 2012

Court Rules on Full Faith and Credit Act of the Constitution

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with Howard E. Bennett, who is also known as Ward Bennett and is deceased. The appellant in the case is David White. Robert Middleton, et al is the respondents in this matter. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and Second Judicial Department.

A New York Family Lawyer said the the petitioner, David White is appealing an order that was made in the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk County made on the 21st of December, 2009 that granted the motion of Andrew Sabin for leave to intervene in the proceeding and revoked his ancillary letters testamentary and an order from the same court that was made on the 24th of June, 2010 upon renewal and re-argument of the case adhered to the original determination made in the December 21st decision.

Case Background

Published on: September 12, 2012

Public Administrator Seeking Approval for Accounting

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with the account of proceedings of Eric P. Milgrim, the Public Administrator for Nassau County as the administrator of the estate of Nora Mabry who is deceased. The Surrogates Court of the State of New York in the county of Nassau is hearing this case.

Case Background

A New York Probate Lawyer said presented to the court are the first and the final account of the Public Administrator for the estate of Nora Mabry. Nora Mabry died intestate as a resident of Uniondale, on the 26th of December, 1998. The decedent left a will that was dated the 15th of June, 1979. In the will the decedent bequeathed her entire residuary estate to her nephew, Wyman Scott who died after the decedent. The Public Administrator was appointed as the temporary administrator for the estate on the 14th of April, 2005. The will of the decedent was admitted for probate by a decree from this court dated the 11th of May, 2010. Letters of administration were issued to the Public Administrator at this time.

Published on: September 11, 2012

Court Discusses Final Accounting of Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with the accounting done by Daniel D’Amico as the Executor of the estate of Andrew Peter D’Amico, deceased. The case is being heard in the Surrogates Court of the State of New York located in the county of Nassau.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the accounting done by Daniel D’Amico as the executor of the estate of Andrew Peter D’Amico has been submitted to the court for review. The executor is seeking approval of his final accounting regarding the estate. This includes the computation and payment of his commissions as the executor of the estate and the commissions of Andrew D’Amico as trustee. In addition, the executor seeks approval of the allowance of fees and expenses for the attorney and accountant and approval to repay a loan made by Gloria Maria D’Amico.

Case Background

Published on: September 10, 2012

Court Discusses Marital Trust Connected with a Will

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with appointing the trustees of the trust for the benefit of Gertrude Feil under the fifth article of the last will and testament of Louis Feil who is deceased. The Surrogates Court of the State of New York located in Nassau County is overhearing this case.

Petitioner’s Motion

A New York Probate Lawyer said the petitioner has motioned for an order to grant the following relief: to dismiss the affirmative defenses that were interposed in the two proceedings, to grant a summary judgment to the petitioner and dismiss the answers and grant the petitions, and to have the letters of trusteeship issued to Jay I. Anderson in connection with the marital trust that was established in the fifth article of the will of Louis Feil and to issue letters of trusteeship to Jay I. Anderson, Erika Feil Lincoln, and Leonard Boxer in connection with the Charitable Lead Annuity Trusts that were established under the sixth article of the will of Louis Feil.

Published on: September 9, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. In this case the objectants are appealing a decree made in the Surrogate’s Court of Queens County. A New York Probate Lawyer said the decree was made on the 9th of September, 1975 and adjudged that the decedent died as a resident of Queens County. A will was admitted to the court for probate and letters of testamentary were provided to the people named in the will as executors of the estate.

Case Background

The decedent, was the successful owner of a business complex that manufactured plastic products for the school stationery industry. The business was run in the city of Flushing located in Queens County. In 1965, he had one of his corporations rent an apartment for him to use in Miami Beach. He used the apartment from January of 1966 through 1969. When the lease for the apartment was made the decedent was living in a penthouse apartment located in Manhattan. He had created an apartment out of an upper space of one of his business buildings for convenience. He would stay in that apartment from time to time as well.

Published on: September 3, 2012

Probate Court Hears Case Filed by Fiduciary

by Stephen Bilkis

Queens Probate 18

This is an uncontested administratix’s accounting proceeding taking place in the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk County. A New York Probate Lawyer said a stipulation has been submitted to the court for approval into the provisions of an intermediate accounting decree.

Case Background

Published on: August 15, 2012

Court Looks at Restrictive Covenant

by Stephen Bilkis

This action involves a case where the court considered that defendant violated a certain restrictive covenant claimed by plaintiffs to affect the lots or parcels of land within an area located in the Borough of Brooklyn.

In the year 1893, deceased died testate seized of said real property. His will was duly admitted to probate by the Surrogate of the County of Kings. By said will the testator’s real property was devised to his children and his executors were given a power of sale.

On or about April 28, 1899 said executors caused to be filed in the office of the Clerk of the County of Kings a map entitled ‘Map of Property Belonging to the Estate of Deceased.’ By said map, the land within the area was subdivided into building lots. All of the lots within the tract, except those fronting on Flatbush Avenue, were conveyed by deeds containing a restrictive covenant in form as follows:

Published on: August 14, 2012

Court Looks at Construction of Will

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the court uphold the principle that the intention of the testatrix is of paramount importance which must be respected after it has been presented and admitted to probate. If the executrix intends to dispose the subject property in the will, the court suggested that she may do so through application for the sale of the real property pursuant to sections 233 of the Surrogate’s Court Act.

On October 28, 1931, decedent’s holographic will was admitted to probate on September 25, 1956. In paragraph ‘Third’ of the will, testatrix provided in part as follows: ‘I give to my daughter In trust for her god child and my grand son my home with all furnishings * * *. I positively wish no encumbrance such as a mortgage or lean (sic) to be placed upon this property * * *. This home is not to be rented or leaset for any business whatever. * * *. I give to my daughter * * * to make sure that she may have a home during her life time. At her death this property goes to her God-child * * *.’ The grandson survived testatrix but has since died.

Petitioner seeks permission from the probate court to sell the real property described in the will.

Published on: August 13, 2012

Trustee Requests Division of Trust

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 31 December 1915, a testator died. On 31 March 1916, his will dated 20 October 1915 was admitted to probate. The Kings County Trust Company was granted letters testamentary on 31 March 1916 and letters of trusteeship on 24 October 1934. Under the will, the testator gave his residuary estate to his executor, in trust, to pay the net income arising therefrom to his wife, for and during her life. On 11 March 1959, the testator’s wife died. The will provides that upon the wife’s death, the said trust is to terminate, and the corpus thereof is to go and that the testator gives, devises and bequeaths the same, in equal shares, among his then surviving nephews and nieces, and the issue of any deceased nephew or niece (except issue of one niece), such issue taking in equal shares the share their parent would have taken if living. According to the will, it is the testator’s intention not to make the issue of the lone niece beneficiaries under his will.

Thereafter, the trustee brought the instant proceeding for the judicial settlement of its account. The trustee has requested in its petition that the Court find and determine that, in accordance with the intent of said decedent, as set forth in the will, the net distributable principal of the trust, now terminated, is primarily divisible into four equal major shares, one each for the lawful issue living at such termination and who represent decedent’s deceased nephews and nieces, the issue of each said deceased nephew and niece, respectively, to receive, in equal sub-shares, per stirpes, the equal major share which the deceased nephew or niece whom they represent would have taken, if living; and direct distribution accordingly.