Suffolk County

Published on: June 1, 2012

Court Discusses Issuing Preliminary Letters Testementary

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 14 December 2005, a decedent died leaving a will dated 13 September 2005 (the “2005 Will”) and a prior will dated 24 January 2003 (the “2003 Will”). The 2003 Will nominates the decedent’s daughter-one as executor and the decedent’s daughter-two as successor executor. The 2005 Will also nominates daughter-one as executor. The decedent was also survived by her other daughter, daughter-three.

Under the 2003 Will, all shares that the decedent had in any companies or corporations is bequeathed to the decedent’s two grandchildren equally and the decedent’s bank accounts to her daughters, daughter-one and daughter-three, equally. The 2003 Will further provides for bequests of tangible personal property. The 2003 Will gives the decedent’s cooperative apartment in equal shares to the two grandchildren. The remainder of the estate is bequeathed in one-third (1/3) shares to each of the decedent’s three daughters.

Published on: May 4, 2012

Court Determines if Loan is in Default

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellant of this case is Gray Wolf Corporation. Gray Wolf Corporation is being represented by Warren B. Rosenbaum from Woods, Oviatt and Gilman, LLP. The defendant and respondent et al of the case is Gleason Estates Associates, LP. Gleason Estates Associates LP is being represented by Gregory J. Mascitti from Leclair Ryan. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the fourth judicial department. The judges who are hearing the case are Martoche, JJ, Lindley, Smith, and Scudder, P.J.

About the Case

A New York Probate Lawyer said this case was started by the plaintiff as a foreclosure action and then moved to a summary judgment based on the complaint. The defendant of the case made a cross move for a summary judgment to dismiss the case altogether.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Discusses Anticipatory Subrogation

by Stephen Bilkis

Estates 7

The Hudson Insurance Company is the plaintiff and AK Construction Co. LLC., Panasia Estates INC., and Hement Mehta are the defendants.

The Case

Published on: April 24, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction between French and American Wills

by Stephen Bilkis

A son from California filed for an order dismissing the pending proceeding to probate his mother’s New York Will that raises an interesting question of jurisdiction. The son argues the jurisdiction of the court to prove the validity of the Will of a non-residence which requests New York to prove valid and invokes New York law on the ground that her French legal residency has assumed jurisdiction over her estate. The motion is opposed by the Petitioners in the proceeding, the co-executors named in the Will, who are presently serving as preliminary executors.

The New York Probate Lawyer said the mother who made the Will was born a French citizen in 1899, and she became a naturalized United States citizen. She was a New York resident for about thirty years. For approximately seven years she was employed in the law offices in New York City. During this period she worked as secretary to one of that firm’s senior partners. A lawyer-client relationship with that firm also commenced during that time. The French Ordinary Residence Card issued indicates that the mother who made the Will stated that she returned to France on October 24, 1971.

The New York Will which is the subject of the jurisdictional attack was drafted by the firm in New York she worked for. It was allegedly executed by the deceased in the firm’s Paris office in 1972, and there is no challenge on the matter. Both the petitioners and the son refer to the 1972 document as the New York Will. Both sides seemingly agree that this Will, whether admitted to be proven valid in New York or established in accordance with French law, governs at most the property of the deceased mother which was physically located in New York when she died, and that it does not affect property actually located in France, which passes under the French Will.

Published on: April 23, 2012

Court Decides Will Contest

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioners of this probate case wanted to withdraw their petition and requested the court to issue letters of administration. The petitioners wanted to abandon their action placing on probate the alleged copy of the last will and testament.

According to the last will and testament of the decedent, the remaining estate will go to her sisters. The decedent named one sister as the executor of the will while the other one was named as the successor. The said executor had predeceased the testator and no issue was raised. The whole estate was passed on to the successor of the will which was also the other successor.

The successor had filed a petition for a guardian to be appointed for her property. Since the court has found that the successor cannot to be relied on managing her own properties, a guardian was appointed. A New York Probate Lawyer said the petitioners of the case were the appointed guardians.

Published on: April 21, 2012

Widow Thinks Estate Taxes Should Not be Taken Out

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the estate of Mr. Frank Wolf. The petitioner is the administrator of the estate, Betsy Wolf. Ethel Wolf is the respondent.

The Estate

The case involves the will of Mr. Wolf. Most of his property was left to his mother, while nothing appeared allocated for his wife. There was also no mention of estate taxes.

Published on: April 20, 2012

Petitioner Files Will Contest Due to Competency of Testator

by Stephen Bilkis

Relative to the petition for probate, the guardian ad litem for the decedent crafted and negotiated the stipulation of settlement of estate was filed before the court for review. The factual circumstances of the case rooted from the time the decedent, a resident of New Hyde Park, Nassau County died on February 15, 2009 leaving a last willl and testament dated June 28, 2007. She was survived by 19 distributees including siblings and the children of four predeceased siblings.

The will leaves all the property in three equal shares, i.e. two to the decedents sisters and the third to the decedent’s niece without mention of the other surviving sister who suffers from Alzheimer’s Disease in whose favor the court appointed a guardian ad litem. Consequent thereto, the 15 distributees filed no objection to the will and preliminary letters issued to petitioner on May 19, 2009.

The will was contested as its execution which was not supervised by an attorney was made through a telephone call from the decedent’s niece herein mentioned and to which issues were raised concerning the competency of the testator at the time of the execution.

Published on: April 17, 2012

Court Decides if an Executor has the Right to Request a Discovery Proceeding Regarding Property

by Stephen Bilkis

The issues being raised in this estate case have two aspects. One issue talks about the objection of probate on the last will and testament of the deceased. Another issue raised on the case was whether the main executor of the will had the right to request for discovery proceeding concerning the property owned by another party.

Before the writer of the will and testament passed away, he drafted an instrument which states that all his property should go to his niece. The niece named on the will becomes in effect the executor of the will.

A New York Probate Lawyer said a few months after the drafting of the first instrument, the decedent had allegedly turned over a deed of one of his real properties to another party other than his niece by marriage. However on the same day, the decedent drafted an instrument and identified it as his last will and testament. According to that instrument, it would revoke or reverse all wills drafted prior to the recent one. This includes the first draft that named his niece the sole executor of his estate.

Published on: April 15, 2012

Court Decides of the Dept. of Social Services can Make a Claim on Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

In a probate proceeding, the issue presented in court by the executrix is the validity of the full amount claim against the estate by the Nassau County Department of Social Services (DSS) granted by the probate court only up to the amount that would prejudice a specific bequest in favour of a legatee in decedent’s will.

The decedent and his wife have to children, one of whom is severely mentally disabled. Decedent made a declaration to the refusal of making his resources available to the medical expenses of his mentally disabled child. Decedent also executed a power of attorney, in behalf said child, appointing the Nassau County DSS of the child’s right to seek support from him. A New York Probate Lawyer said the decedent’s wife, who had an Alzheimer’s disease, was placed in a nursing home and received Medicaid benefits making the decedent a “community spouse.”

Upon death of the decedent, his will was submitted for probate. The will provided that the residuary estate is given to the surviving wife in a special needs trust and that, upon her death, the remainder of the trust shall be distributed in specific bequests among the contingent legatees. A Westchester County Probate Lawyer said a bequest was given to the disabled child in a special need trust for his benefit. A guardian ad litem was appointed, in behalf the surviving wife, who was ordered to exercise the wife’s right of election against decedent’s estate. Prior to the exercise of such right, the surviving spouse died.

Published on: April 14, 2012

Will Contest Action Filed regarding Lawyer’s Will

by Stephen Bilkis

On 10 May 1977, a decedent who is an attorney died. On 27 June 1977, letters of administration (estate administration) were issued to the Public Administrator, County of Nassau. He received the keys to the decedent’s residence from a Nassau County police detective on 11 May 1977 and made a thorough search of the residence. The public administrator found a sealed envelope, among other things, bearing the words “Copy of Deed to Lutheran Cemetery,” “Copy of Last Will and Testament” (carbon copy) bearing the decedent’s signature. On the back of the envelope, written across the flap was the decedent’s signature.

The objectants, three (3) of the cousins named in the instrument and five other individuals whose status was contested by the proponent in the instant case, conceded that the document was written in the decedent’s handwriting. No evidence was offered to prove that the document was a carbon copy although the proponent herself alleged that it was a carbon and not a ribbon copy. The back of the last page was blank except for the following handwritten words: “Copy of Last Will and Testament” and “Original in Safe Deposit Box in Jam. Savings Bank.”

The instrument provided for the disposition of real property and bequeathed $300.00 to each of the decedent’s eight cousins and the residuary estate to two of the cousins. It appointed the two cousins as executors of the estate.