Suffolk County

Published on: January 30, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Lillian Sandow had two wills. One dated July 16, 1947 which was the one presented to the court for probate, and the other one was dated February 16, 1945. In the February 16, 1945 will, there were two beneficiaries declared as sole legatees. They were contending the July 16, 1947 will as a forgery. From what a New York Probate Lawyer got from their claim, they are saying that the last three pages of the will which had the signature were authentic, and the first four pages were substituted.

The first four pages are the ones that contained the legacies and the appointment of the executrix. The last three pages of the signature of Ms. Sandow, the witnesses’ signature and a power of attorney. They cited this and much on a previous case of Hinderson’s will and Teller’s will. In both these cases, the mere allegation of fraud caused the will to be vacated. In these cases though, the court had established that the fraud was in stopping the filing of any contest against the will. It was not an attack on the will itself. They also failed to notice that in both cases, the fraud was established in the preliminary hearing.

The petitioners claim there was no fraud in the withholding of the earlier will, and allegedly they found the earlier will in the office of a lawyer, who was not connected, in any way, to the parties. They also said that they questioned the authenticity of the will the same night that it was read and one consulted an attorney about it. He was advised that not being a beneficiary without an earlier will that shows he was part of is not going to be accepted by the court. Staten Island Probate Lawyers mentioned that it was only after the older will was found that they felt they had a stand to contest the will says a New. They contest does not name the perpetrators of the forgery, but the words are directed to the executrix and her attorney as she is the sole beneficiary of the will.

Published on: January 28, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Edward Rogowsky died in March of 2001 leaving behind his partner, Peter McGarry and two children, Joshua D. Rogowsky and Mark L. Rogowsky. Reports reached a New York Probate Lawyer that Rogowsky executed his last will and testament leaving behind a chain of residential premises or apartments at Glen Road Southold, New York. According to further reports, Rogowsky made McGarry the sole beneficiary of the residential premises as well as all his other assets except for $20,000 worth of property to his two nephews.

On the same year, 2001, the Kings County court, seeing everything has been done in a legal and proper order, granted all rights to McGarry according to Rogowsky’s last will and testament. Unfortunately, Rogowsky’s two sons filed a case against McGarry on charges of fraud and other charges that are in connection with their father’s estate.

Apparently, Rogowsky’s sons were already going to contest their father’s will and testament in 2001 but McGarry made a promise that he will share whatever profit he will receive from the apartments in Southold, New York. But according to accounts no such promise was honored by McGarry. He in fact, he sold the apartments and the house in Southold in 2006 and kept all the cash for himself. Rogowsky’s sons also claimed that McGarry already found a new partner in life, forgetting all about their father and the promise he made to them about equally sharing the profits of their father’s estate. It was also discussed during the trial that when Rogowsky was still alive, he repeatedly told his sons, in front of McGarry that he meant to transfer ownership of the apartments and house to his sons. Further, McGarry allegedly promised that he will respect Rogowsky’s intention of giving the properties to his sons. Apparently that was what made McGarry promise the Rogowsky brothers that he will equally share all profits to all three of them. Sadly, no such thing happened and McGarry kept it all to himself according to the charges. Rogowsky’s sons’ actions to file a case against McGarry are based on the McGarry’s promise to fulfil the last wishes of their father before he died even though it was not included in Rogowsky’s will and testament.

Published on: January 28, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 12, 1992, Louis Rosen died in a mental facility in California, allegedly leaving behind his entire estate to Warren Silverman as his primary beneficiary. According to reports that reached New York Probate Lawyer, the last will that was left by Rosen was written during the time when he was already determined to be mentally ill. This means that the Will naming Warren to be the primary beneficiary of Rosen’s estate is invalid according to existing laws. Also, according to the evidences presented at court by the other surviving relatives of Rosen, Warren and Warren’s mother Miriam exerted excessive influence to the deceased making them the only people who had access to Rosen’s financial resources four years before he died.

Four years before Rosen died, Miriam already moved into Rosen’s apartment and took care of everything for him, including his financial affairs. This was confirmed by Rosen’s accountant because he claimed he personally saw Miriam “bossing” Rosen around. He also claimed that Miriam had access and even had control over Rosen’s bank account including his personal checks. This is one of the reasons why Rosen’s other relatives have filed a case against Warren saying that the only reason why Rosen had named him primary executor and beneficiary of all his estate was because of the influence of his mother Miriam over Rosen at the time Rosen was already mentally unstable.

The court also believed, upon seeing the evidences presented that Rosen was indeed under no mental condition to knowingly decide for himself anymore. Reports that reached a Long Island Probate Lawyers said that there are several accounts when Rosen was found lost and only in his underwear by the local police. The last time they were able to find him was in 1990 where he was taken to a nearby hospital for treatments. Friends and relatives also noticed the changes in Rosen’s behaviour, saying he was already incapable to keeping his personal hygiene. It was actually during this time when Miriam moved in and took care of everything for Rosen. It was also during this time, when Rosen made deposits, supposedly gifts to Miriam’s children amounting to almost $10,000 each. After that, he allegedly made a transfer of a staggering $1.5 million to Warren and Miriam. These supposedly cash gifts and other properties left by Rosen to Warren are what the other relatives of Rosen are now objecting to.

Published on: January 22, 2012

Court Rules on Will Contest Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

In the matter of a decedent’s estate, his daughter had filed a motion for the court to wait on admission of a decision regarding the probate of the last will and testament. She also asked for a time extension to file objections and time to be able to examine the proponent and for an interpretation of the effect of the terrorem clause or no-contest clause that is included in the will.

On the return day of the hearing for the original matter, the daughter showed and the proponent was directed to change the petition because the adoptive daughter of the decedent’s predeceased son was not mentioned. More data that a New York Probate Lawyer obtained was the daughter was not served with the supplemental citation and is claiming she only received a day’s notice that a decree on the admission of the will to probate is going to be presented to the court. The daughter got an immediate order to show cause to wait in making a decision on the decree.

The daughter had checked witnesses who are verifying the proposed will and now wants to examine the proponent of the will. Her allegation was that the son of the testator, who is also an attorney at law, acted as the decedent’s attorney, and the will being executed in his office. Further, she is claiming that the provisions of the will were altered to assign other benefits to the proponent and his family at her expense. Suffolk County Probate Lawyers cited that the daughter was as well saying that her father was 80 years old at the execution of the will and was relying on other for his physical needs.