Suffolk County

Published on: November 3, 2012

Court Looks at the Intent of the Decedent

by Stephen Bilkis

Establishing the jurisdiction that will handle a probate action in a New York Probate Court sometimes requires the knowledge of the decedent’s entire residential history. Just because a person dies in one county does not mean that the probate should be handled by that county. Probate in New York Law is handled by the jurisdiction that the decedent lived in for the ending years of their life. A New York Probate Lawyer said that address must be a voluntary residence and not necessarily a nursing home or hospice where the person resided toward the end of their lives. In New York law, it is referred to as a domicile. A domicile is existing until a new one is set up. A person moves from one domicile to another throughout their lives. The primary element in establishing a domicile is intent. Sometimes, the evaluation of residential change and intent to move can be blurry.

In one case, a woman who was born in Odessa, Russia in 1898, moved to Brooklyn, New York sometime around 1911. She was married and lived as an American citizen for the remainder of her life. She and her husband purchased a home on Beaumont Street in Manhattan Beach in Brooklyn, New York shortly after their marriage. They lived in that house and raised their family to adulthood in that house. In 1989, she began to have medical problems. During that year and the one that followed, she spent most of her time in hospitals or nursing homes. On December 6, 1990, she was a resident patient at Beth Israel Hospital in Manhattan. She died on that date. For three months before she died she had lived in a nursing home in Bronx County.

Her family had sold her home in Manhattan Beach during her long illness. The court was required to determine if she was considered a resident of Bronx County or a resident of Brooklyn. An additional complication was that she died in Manhattan. The court must evaluate which county was the woman’s domicile at the time of her death. They determined that it would not be appropriate to determine that she was a resident of Manhattan since her stay there was too short. A Westchester County Probate Lawyer said the question remains as to whether she has a domicile in the Bronx, or Brooklyn. The argument that is most important in this particular case involves that of intent. Did the woman have the intent to sell her lifelong domicile in Brooklyn and establish a new domicile in the Bronx prior to her death? The court must try to determine what the woman’s intent was at the time that her home was sold.

Published on: November 1, 2012

Petitioner Claims Will Not Valid

by Stephen Bilkis

An instrument alleged to have been executed in December of 1955 by the decedent is being offered for probate in the Surrogate’s Court of Queens County. The instrument names an executor and an attorney and draftsman as well.

Case Background

The decedent passed away in April of 1957. She was survived by her sister to whom she left $500 and the right to be buried in her plot. The decedent left $200 to a former employee. The rest was given to a “dear friend.” The estate has an estimated worth of $5,500.

Published on: October 26, 2012

Will Submitted to Probate

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with the last will and testament executed by the testatrix on the 26th of August, 1964. The matter is being handled by the Surrogate’s Court of Queens County. The instrument appears to be natural and leaves her entire estate to her husband. If her husband predeceases her the estate is split between her two adult daughters.

Case Discussion and Decision

The two daughters have signed waivers and consent to the will being admitted for probate. The will consists of three pages. A New York Probate Lawyer said the testatrix signed the will at the bottom of the second page. The final page appears to be an attestation clause that is signed by three witnesses and the signatures are notarized.

Published on: October 21, 2012

Court Decides if Formal Accounting Necessary

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals with the accounting of Leif I Rubinstein as the executor of the estate of William Gillett who is deceased. The case is being held in the Surrogates Court of Suffolk County. This is an executor’s account proceeding (estate administration) where the attorney fiducia is requesting nunc pro tunc approval for the payment that he made to himself for the legal services that he provided on behalf of the decedent’s estate. He did not have judicial authorization to make the payment. He is also seeking approval of disbursements that he made.

Case Background

Jurisdiction has been obtained over the parties for this proceeding and they have each executed waivers of service of process and have consented to granting the relief that has been requested.

Published on: October 17, 2012

Testatrix Leaves Her Estate to a Wildlife Sanctuary

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Suffolk County Court. The matter at hand deals with an application made by the American Museum of Natural History. The application requests a refund of certain taxes that the museum paid under erroneous and illegal assessments that were made.

The American Museum of Natural History is trying to recover certain taxes that they have paid or taxes that were paid on their behalf on certain real property that is located in the Town of Huntington. A New York Probate Lawyer said the refund claim is based on the ground that the property should have been tax exempt under provisions of the Tax Law.

Case Background

Published on: October 16, 2012

Court Looks at Stipulation of Settlement Agreement

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

A New York Probate Lawyer said on 24 September 2008, the decedent died a resident and domiciliary of Nassau County. In November 2008, “A” filed a petition seeking a decree awarding her letters of administration. In the proceeding, “A” identified herself as the decedent’s wife. Annexed to the petition was an affidavit of heirship by a certain person, who swore therein that the decedent was married to the petitioner at the time of his death, and that the decedent died without children and without a will. On 25 November 2008, a decree of administration was issued and letters of administration to “A”.

Thereafter, “B”, as the named executor and one of the decedent’s siblings, filed a petition for probate of an instrument (a will contest proceeding) propounded to be the decedent’s last will and testament and for the issuance of letters testamentary. The petition identifies “A” as the decedent’s spouse, but states that the decedent was separated from “A” at the time of the decedent’s death; that the decedent died leaving 10 siblings. “B” and one other sibling of the decedent also instituted a proceeding seeking an order revoking letters of administration issued to “A”, and compelling her to account.

Published on: October 2, 2012

Beneficiaries Bring Will Contest Action

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a probate proceeding involving the estate of Alexander MacLeman, deceased. The case is being heard in the Surrogate’s Court of the City of New York located in Westchester County. The probate of the estate is being contested in this case. Karen MacLeman Morgese, who is one of the three children of the decedent and a nominated co-executor of the will, has offered the will for probate. Karen’s two brothers, John and William MacLeman have each filed objections to the probate.

Case Background

The decedent passed away on the 10th of December, 2003. He was 91 years old at the time and living in an assisted living facility located in Ossining in Westchester County, New York. The decedents will, gave the real property located in Amagansett, Suffolk County to his daughter Karen. The will bequeathed $50,000 to William to equalize loans he had made to his other children. A New York Probate Lawyer said the loans of the other children were forgiven in the will. The personal property and residuary estate were given to all three children in equal parts. A further provision in the will stated that any checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, etc. that he held jointly with any of the children at the time he passed would be estate assets and not provided to the surviving joint tenant of the assets.

Published on: October 1, 2012

Court Reviews Alleged Fraudulent Acts by Fiduciaries

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk County. The case involves the will of Madeleine Daltrolff Corya, who is deceased. The case is an accounting proceeding where the co-petitioners, the attorney – draftsman and the Bankers Trust Company have requested that the court fix and determine the fee and disbursements of the attorney’s law firm in the amount of $250,000 and to fix and allow the combined commissions for the total amount of $1,634,230.40. The counsel has requested a hearing be held in respect to this application for fees and disbursements.

Case Background

The decedent passed away in April of 1987 and is survived by a grand nephew. The decedent bequeathed her entire estate, which amounted to approximately $46 million at the time she passed away, to two charitable organizations, the American Cancer Society and Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases of New York. Her attorney, John J. Barrett and the Bankers Trust Company of New York were named as executors of the will.

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: August 7, 2012

Guardian ad Litem Contends Undue Influence

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a probate proceeding that questions the will of Vito DeMarco, the deceased. The case involves the administrator of the estate, Christina Matozzo versus the Trustee of the Vito DeMarco Living Trust, Anthony DeMarco. Mr. DeMarco is seeking to declare that the trust is invalid. The case is being heard in the Surrogate’s Court of the State of New York.

Proceedings

There are currently three different proceedings that are pending in regard to the Vito DeMarco estate. The first is the proceeding that seeks to assert that the Vito DeMarco Living Trust that is dated the 19th of March, 2001 as invalid.