New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog
The Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County, addressed whether nominated co-executors who were unable to work together should continue administering a multimillion-dollar estate.
Background
Alicia H. Pachis died in July 2020 at the age of 94. She never married, had no children, and left a will making numerous charitable bequests. The will nominated Leonard Sammarco and attorney Reginald Asiedu as co-executors.
Although the will contained detailed funeral instructions, the decedent was buried in Potter’s Field on Hart Island, where she remained for nearly five years. The probate proceedings became increasingly contentious as the nominated co-executors accused one another of preventing the administration of the estate.
Sammarco sought to remove Asiedu as co-executor, alleging that Asiedu had delayed the administration of the estate and interfered with its progress. Asiedu filed his own motion seeking Sammarco’s removal, claiming that Sammarco withheld information about estate assets, entered into an unauthorized asset recovery agreement, and created conflicts of interest. The New York Attorney General also asked the court to disqualify both co-executors and appoint the Bronx County Public Administrator.
Issue
Can a Surrogate’s Court appoint a temporary administrator when hostility between nominated co-executors prevents the proper administration of an estate?
Holding
Yes. The court revoked its earlier decree appointing the co-executors and appointed the Bronx County Public Administrator as temporary administrator because the hostility between the nominated fiduciaries made cooperation impossible and prevented the estate from moving forward.
Discussion
The court acknowledged the long-standing rule that a testator’s choice of executor should generally be respected. It also recognized that disagreements alone are ordinarily not enough to disqualify an executor.
However, the court explained that there is an important exception. Where the hostility between fiduciaries interferes with the administration of the estate and future cooperation is unlikely, the Surrogate may remove or refuse to appoint the nominated fiduciaries.
The record demonstrated exactly that situation. Nearly five years had passed since the decedent’s death, yet the estate remained largely unadministered. The nominated co-executors had filed competing motions seeking each other’s removal, accused one another of misconduct, and were unable to cooperate on even basic aspects of estate administration.
The court was particularly troubled by the practical consequences of the dispute. The estate was reportedly worth millions of dollars, but administration had stalled. The decedent’s burial wishes had not been carried out, and the ongoing conflict prevented meaningful progress toward settling the estate.
Given the level of acrimony, the court concluded there was no realistic possibility that the co-executors could work together. Rather than allow the estate to remain at a standstill, the court determined that an independent fiduciary was needed to marshal the assets and move the administration forward while the probate litigation continued.
Accordingly, the court appointed the Bronx County Public Administrator as temporary administrator pending resolution of the probate proceeding.
Conclusion
Matter of Pachis illustrates that while New York courts generally honor a decedent’s choice of executor, that preference may give way when hostility between co-executors prevents the estate from being properly administered. When disagreements become so severe that cooperation is no longer possible, the Surrogate’s Court has the authority to appoint an independent temporary administrator to protect the estate and ensure that administration can proceed. Anyone involved in a dispute over the appointment or removal of an executor should consult an experienced New York probate attorney to understand their rights and options.