Articles Posted in Suffolk County

A woman died and survived by her two adult children. Her son is married and had two children. Her daughter is the nominated administrator of her last will, as well as the complainant in this matter.

The last will was offered for probate. A New York Probate Lawyer said but, it was not drafted by an attorney nor was its execution supervised by an attorney. The last will appears to be a form on which information was inserted by typing. It is signed by the testator and three attesting witnesses. An acknowledgment of the testator’s signature was also taken by a notary public at the time of the implementation. Consequently, the file offered for validation also contains strike outs, erasures and handwritten interlineations. The alterations were apparently made by the testator.

The originally typed last will direct that the property of the woman will be given in the manner of partition. A New York Will Lawyer said it is stated that her daughter shall receive 50% of all investments & monies, such as bank accts, stocks, bond, etc.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, this is an application brought on by the administrator through an order to show cause to restrain certain corporations in which this estate owns shares from transferring such stock on the authority of a person to whom letters testamentary have been issued by another court. Before the court made its decision of August 12 1968, a hearing was held on the question of the decedent’s domicile. This was after an earlier hearing showed that proceedings purportedly brought by the proponent in this court based upon a copy of process served by her attorney to probate the alleged will of the decedent were abandoned. Instead of filing it here, the will was sent to St. Croix, Virgin Islands, by the attorney for the proponent.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, as pointed out in the earlier decision, the proponent’s attorney participated in the hearing in this court on her behalf on the issue of domicile; he cross-examined the witnesses and himself testified for his said client on that issue. However, only a copy of the will was exhibited here and it appears that proponent at some time, either pending determination of the proceedings in this court, or later, did file the will in the Virgin Islands Territorial District Court at St. Croix where it has since allegedly been admitted to probate. This court has not been given any copy of the papers and proceedings conducted there but it does appear that the St. Croix proceedings were pro forma and without a hearing or on notice or process (except possibly publication) served upon the decedent’s grandson. It also appears that the St. Croix proceedings were probably instituted by proponent in violation of this court’s injunction as set forth in the aforementioned decision and subsequent order thereon, copies of which were duly served upon her attorney.

A Westchester County Probate Lawyer said that, after the prior hearings and after the order was entered on the decision of August 12, 1968, the proponent filed a notice of appeal in this court on September 18, 1968, appealing that decision and order to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. This appeal has not been perfected. She was then given an opportunity on due notice and on due process served upon her, issued out of this court, to prove the validity of the will in her possession or to show cause why the estate should not be administered under the jurisdiction of this court by the grandson as administrator. Upon her default and failure to come forward, this court had no alternative but to conclude that such proof was not available and it accordingly appointed the grandson as administrator.

Continue reading

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, before the court is the first and final account of the Public Administrator for the estate of the decedent, who died intestate, a resident of Uniondale, on December 26, 1998. Decedent left a will dated June 15, 1979 which bequeathed her entire residuary estate to her nephew, who post-deceased the decedent. The Public Administrator was appointed temporary administrator of the estate on April 14, 2005. Decedent’s will was admitted to probate by a decree of this court dated May 11, 2010 and letters of administration c.t.a. were issued to the Public Administrator on that date. The account of the Public Administrator was initially filed on July 6, 2010.

A Nassau Probate Lawyer said that, the account filed by the Public Administrator shows the receipt of $87,102.28 of estate principal, which was supplemented by income collected totaling $4,935.98. This resulted in total charges of $92,038.26. This amount was reduced by administrative expenses through April 30, 2010 in the amount of $68,155.17, leaving a balance of $23,883.09 on hand. The Public Administrator seeks approval of the accounting, approval of commissions, the fixing of fees for the services of the attorney and accountant, and authorization to distribute the net estate to the court appointed administrator of the estate of the decedent’s nephew. In addition, the court must release the administrator from the surety bond.

The issue in this case is whether the account of the Public Administrator should be granted.

This case is contested probate proceeding brought to the court by the nephew of the decedent, A. Objectant moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment denying probate to the two propounded wills dated 19 October 2001. A New York Probate Lawyer said the proponent, B, cross moves for summary judgment dismissing the objections and admitting the propounded instruments dated 19 October 2001 to probate. The objectant has interposed his objections to the propounded instruments alleging undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity. Objectant also seeks to disqualify B as executor of the estate pursuant to SCPA 707.

On 19 December 2001, decedent C died. He was survived by five brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews of predeceased siblings. Proponent B petitioned for probate of two instruments dated the same day, 19 October 2001. Both instruments contain the names of L, M, and N as the attesting witnesses and O, notary, with a stamp and signature.

Both instruments nominate B as executrix; one of them nominates D as successor. Both instruments divide the estate equally between D and B.

Continue reading

In this Estate Litigation, the decedent, died in October 1999. Her will on 1997 was admitted to probate in April 2000. Letters testamentary issued to the decedent’s son. The son died in May 2002. Following his death, successor letters testamentary issued to the administrator in June 2002.

A Nassau County Estate attorney said that under Article THIRD of her will, the decedent bequeathed her residuary estate to her surviving issue subject to trusts created under Articles FOURTH, FIFTH and SIXTH. The decedent was survived by her son, a daughter, and a granddaughter, who is the daughter of the decedent’s predeceased daughter. Pursuant to the will, the share for the decedent’s son was set apart for his benefit in trust to be administered in accordance with the provisions of Article FOURTH. Letters of trusteeship issued to the son and another as trustees of the Article FOURTH trust. Pursuant to the terms of the trust for son, the trust terminated upon the son’s death and the then principal and income became payable to his surviving issue, subject to further trusts for any such issue under the age of thirty-five.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the son was survived by two children who are under the age of 35 and, therefore, separate trusts were created for the benefit of each pursuant to Article SIXTH. Letters of trusteeship issued to the daughter as trustee of the trusts for the benefit of the son’s children.

A man died leaving a last will and was subsequently admitted to probate. The letters testamentary was issued to the deceased man’s youngest son. Still, the last will bequeath the man’s residuary estate equally to his three sons.

A New York Probate Lawyer said in the court suspended the letters testamentary and issued the new one to the deceased man’s middle son. In addition, the matter was scheduled for a hearing on the issue of removing the youngest son as the administrator.

Prior to the proceeding, the youngest son made a motion to disqualify his brother’s attorney. Then, the parties entered into a written condition resolving the various issues. A New York Will Lawyer said the stipulation provided that the deceased man’s middle son would withdraw his motion against his younger brother and for an accounting. On the other hand, the youngest child would withdraw his motion with regards to the law firm disqualification.

Continue reading

A New York Probate Lawyer said this is an action pursuant to Article 15 of the Real Property Law to compel the determination of claims to certain real property located at Bronx, City of New York. The plaintiff seeks a decree that she is entitled to the title of said premise as against all of the defendants and every person claiming under them. She contends that she is the sole owner in fee of the property entitled to possession of the premises and that she has a good and marketable title acquired by adverse possession.

A Bronx County Probate attorney said that plaintiff acquired title by deed of conveyance from the adminstratrix of herein deceased. Plaintiff is now in possession of the property and occupies same. The defendant, the plaintiff’s grantor, acquired her title by deed of conveyance from her husband in March 1932. Defendant administratrix was in possession until the sale of the property to the plaintiff.

Decedent obtained title to these premises by virtue of a deed from Rosa Belle Christian, his first wife, dated January 16, 1931.