Staten Island

Published on: September 19, 2013

Court Discusses Proving Testamentary Capacity

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, in this contested probate proceeding, the proponent, moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment dismissing the objections and admitting the propounded instrument dated March 19, 2003 to probate. The objectant is the son of the decedent. The propounded instrument nominates the proponent as executor. The decedent, died on August 8, 2006, at the age of 88, survived by two children. Decedent and his wife of 42 years were divorced on January 8, 2004. The will offered for probate bequeaths substantially all of decedent’s assets to Perry to the exclusion of Nils. The decedent had as many as six wills, all but one of which (March 31, 2001) excluded Nils from decedent’s estate.

A New York Wills Lawyer said that, in 1954, the decedent founded a company in the business of the distribution of airplane parts and accessories. Decedent was the sole shareholder. Both the decedent’s children were employed by the company. In 1995, the first son’s employment was terminated and thereafter, he and decedent were estranged. On April 12, 2002, pursuant to a stock purchase agreement, the decedent sold his stock in the company to his son who executed a note for $9,600, 000, representing the purchase price of 80% of decedent’s shares. The remaining 20% of the stock was gifted by decedent to his son. Prior to the stock sale, decedent transferred substantial assets to his wife.

A Nassau Estate Litigation Lawyer, the objectant has interposed the following objections to the propounded instrument: lack of testamentary capacity, lack of due execution, fraud, and undue influence. In support of the motion to admit the will to probate, the proponent submits his own affidavit, the deposition testimony of witnesses to the will, the affidavits of employees of the company, the company’s accountant, the wife’s attorney an associate in proponent’s law firm. Various documentary evidence was also submitted.

Published on: September 17, 2013

Court Decides Whether Accounting Fees and Attorney’s Fees Should be Approved

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, in this accounting proceeding, the only issues before the court are the approval of attorneys’ fees and accounting fees. The decedent died on November 25, 2004, a resident of Nassau County leaving a will dated October 12, 2004, which was admitted to probate by decree of this court dated July 12, 2005. Letters testamentary issued to the decedent’s daughter, on July 12, 2005. The decedent was survived by seven children. The will divides the decedent’s residuary estate equally among his seven children

A New York Wills Lawyer said that, this is the executor’s first and final accounting covering the period November 25, 2004 through May 30, 2008. The summary statement shows charges to the accounting party of $955,030.92. Objections to the account were filed by the other children of the decedent. A stipulation of settlement settling the objections was entered into on September 23, 2009. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, the executor agreed to reduce her claim for executor’s commissions from $32,414.40 to $22,414.40 and use the reduction to fund a $10,000 payment to the objectants. The agreement also provides for the distribution of certain items of tangible property.

The issue in this case is whether the accounting fees and the attorney’s fees should be approved by the court.

Published on: August 18, 2013

Court Decides Statute of Limitation Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The decedent died on February 7, 1946. Shortly thereafter the executrix filed with the court a petition for the probate of the decedent’s will, together with her oath and designation. Jurisdiction of all necessary parties was obtained and the proceeding was marked for decree on July 10, 1946, subject to the affidavits of subscribing witnesses. Letters testamentary were not issued at that time.

The County Attorney of advised the then petitioner (and now executrix) by letter of the existence of the, the Board of Public Welfare of Nassau County filed a notice of claim with the court. This notice was not served on the then petitioner. Nothing further was done by the petitioner to complete the proceeding until February 1965 when the matter was reactivated and the will eventually admitted to probate and letters were issued.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the petitioner herein has requested a determination that the aforementioned claim of the Board of Public Welfare of Nassau County be held invalid and unenforceable against the estate and the executrix on the grounds that the claim is barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations provided by the old section 48 of the Civil Practice Act. The section 104 of the Social Welfare Law does not authorize recovery of amounts paid by welfare boards for any period prior to ten years before decedent’s death, and thus at least that part of the claim in the amount of $2,130.57 representing payments made prior to 1938 is not recoverable. The estate was insolvent at the date of the decedent’s death because the amount of her funeral and administration expenses exceeded the value of her personal property, and the amount of mortgage liens and unpaid interest thereon exceeded the value of her real property.

Published on: August 1, 2013

Probate Court Decides Out of State Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

Two cases before two (2) courts involve the same or similar issues, that is, the jurisdictions of both courts in ruling upon the probate proceedings filed before it.

First Case:

A New York Probate Lawyer said that on 26 April 1954, the decedent was committed to a State Hospital. Thereafter or on 12 August 1954, a Supreme Court in Kings County issued an order finding decedent to be an incompetent person. This order recited that decedent was then a resident of Kings County, and appointed “A”, a resident of Huntington, Suffolk County, as committee of the person and property of the incompetent. On 29 March 1955, the decedent died while a patient in the State Hospital. Consequently, “A”, who continues to reside in Huntington, was named executrix in the will of the decedent. Following the death, a probate proceeding was then instituted with “A” as the petitioner in Suffolk County. Respondent, appearing specially, challenges the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that decedent, at the time of his death, was a resident of Kings County.

Published on: July 29, 2013

Court Decides if Deceased Had Testamentary Capacity

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said this is a contested probate proceeding after trial before the court and a jury wherein a verdict was rendered by the jury finding that at the time of execution of the propounded instrument the decedent lacked testamentary capacity and that the execution of the instrument was caused or procured by undue influence and fraud. The evidence offered attributed the undue influence and fraud solely to proponent. The court espoused the verdict of the jury on these issues. The contestant has exercised his option to seek costs pursuant to SCPA 2302 upon the entry of the decree. It is the proponent’s contention that the court should not exercise its discretionary power to allow costs to the contestant since the proponent having been named in the instrument as executor was under a duty to offer the purported will for probate. The sole legatee in the instrument at issue was proponent’s wife.

A New York Will Lawyer said the court holds that as a general rule, a person named as executor has the duty to bring forward the will and to assume the burden of its probate. Having this duty, he will not usually be burdened with costs if he fails in his effort to have the instrument admitted to probate. But where it is shown, as it was in this case, that the executor was guilty of fraud and undue influence practiced by him personally in the fraudulent execution of the will, and with full knowledge of the fraud he attempted to impose the instrument upon the court as a valid document, it must be concluded proponent was acting in bad faith. In such cases, good morals and public policy dictate that not only should proponent be denied costs but that he be personally charged with discretionary costs for his unsuccessful effort as was ruled in the cases of Matter of Reeves, Matter of Godlef, Matter of Lachat and Matter of Jackson.

A Staten Island Probate Lawyer said the court has reached the conclusion that proponent should be taxed personally with costs. The application presents a question as to the amount of said costs. Contestant seeks the sum of $4,100. This amount includes $300 by reason of having a contest, $1,200 for 5 days of trial less one, plus $100 per day for 26 days spent in preparation for trial based in SCPA 2302(2)(a) (ii).

Published on: July 26, 2013

Court Discusses Issues Related to Filing of Notice of Election

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an application for an order relieving the petitioner of her default in filing her notice to take an elective share as decedent’s surviving spouse within the time provided and extending her time to file the notice of election. The question presented is whether the provision in EPTL 5-1.1-A (d)(1) that “an election under this section must be made in no event later than two years after the date of decedent’s death” precludes the granting of this uncontested application which was not filed until almost three years after decedent’s death.

A Bronx County Probate lawyer said that the decedent’s distributees are the petitioner, who is his second wife, and two adult children, issue of his first marriage. The decedent’s will was admitted to probate in November 2002 and letters testamentary issued to decedent’s brother. Under the circumstances that existed on the date of decedent’s death, his estate is bequeathed in equal shares to his two children. The petitioner, a resident of Mexico, concedes that she was served with a citation in the probate proceeding by mail in July 2002. She did not file the instant application until January, 2003.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the petitioner’s primary reasons for her delay in seeking to file the notice of election are that counsel for the executor allegedly had informed her that the entire estate consisted of joint accounts that were not testamentary substitutes because the decedent had created them prior to their marriage and that she did not receive the probate citation until more than two years after the date of decedent’s death. Although it took the petitioner a considerable period of time, she eventually obtained jurisdiction over the executor and the two beneficiaries of the estate, and they have interposed no opposition to the relief requested.

Published on: July 4, 2013

Defendants Fail to Establish Prima Facie Case for Summary Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

Two cases were brought before the court for resolution.

In the first case:

A New York Probate Lawyer said that on 24 July 2006, the Supreme Court of New York County rendered judgment granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment only to the extent of precluding plaintiff from asserting any claims for legal fees incurred in the prosecution of the action, and denied the defendant’s application to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for consequential damages based on the alleged breach of duty. The defendant appealed.

Published on: June 30, 2013

Probate Court Reverses Summary Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

The order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court which reversed a judgment of the New York County Civil Court in tenant’s favor was unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the landlord’s petition is dismissed.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the evidence presented to the trial court amply supported its conclusion that the respondent’s relationship with the now deceased tenant of record was that of a nontraditional family member, as defined in Rent Stabilization Code wherein any other person residing with the tenant or permanent tenant in the housing accommodation as a primary or principal residence, respectively, who can prove emotional and financial commitment, and interdependence between such person and the tenant or permanent tenant. Although no single factor shall be solely determinative, evidence which is to be considered in determining whether such emotional and financial commitment and interdependence existed may include, without limitation, such factors as longevity of the relationship or sharing of or relying upon each other for payment of household or family expenses, and/or other common necessities of life. Another factor is intermingling of finances as evidenced by, among other things, joint ownership of bank accounts, personal and real property, credit cards, loan obligations, sharing a household budget for purposes of receiving government benefits. Engaging in family-type activities by jointly attending family functions, holidays and celebrations, social and recreational activities are yet another factor to be considered. Another factor is formalizing of legal obligations, intentions, and responsibilities to each other by such means as executing wills naming each other as executor and/or beneficiary, granting each other a power of attorney and/or conferring upon each other authority to make health care decisions each for the other, entering into a personal relationship contract, making a domestic partnership declaration, or serving as a representative payee for purposes of public benefits.

A Queens Probate Lawyer said the court will also consider when the person residing with the tenant is holding themselves out as family members to other family members, friends, members of the community or religious institutions, or society in general, through their words or actions or if the person is regularly performing family functions, such as caring for each other or each other’s extended family members, and/or relying upon each other for daily family services; or if the person residing with the tenant is engaging in any other pattern of behavior, agreement, or other action which evidences the intention of creating a long-term, emotionally committed relationship. In no event would evidence of a sexual relationship between such persons be required or considered.

Published on: June 3, 2013

Court Decides Property Dispute Among Family Members

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. A New York Probate Lawyer said 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. 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: January 25, 2013

Probate Court Discusses Hold Over Proceedings

by Stephen Bilkis

In a court proceeding, a complainant filed a motion to stay pending the determination of an appeal from an order of the civil court. Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition, the court consequently ordered that the motion is granted on condition that the appeal will be completed. New York Probate Lawyers said the complainant however was directed to pay the opponent any and all arrears in rent and/or use and occupancy at the rate previously payable as rent within 10 days from the date of the decision. They also need to continue to pay the opponent’s use and occupancy at a like rate as it becomes due. The court further ordered that in the event that any of the above conditions are not met, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, or the opponent may move to vacate the stay on three day’s notice.

In another case, another appeal was also filed from an order of the civil court. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branch of the tenants’ motion in seeking an award of attorney’s fees.

The landlord initiated the holdover proceeding after terminating the tenancy based upon the tenants’ failure to cease using the basement portion of the apartment as a living room. Based on records, the said usage had resulted in the issuance of a violation by the department of buildings. Thereafter, the parties entered into a condition, contained in which was an agreement that tenants had cured the breach to landlord’s satisfaction by moving their furniture and personal items, and the matter was marked off the calendar so that the department of buildings could re-inspect the basement.