New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog

Published on: May 5, 2012

Defendant Files Motion for Appeal

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner for this particular case is Carlton Estates, Inc. The respondents of the case are Humberto Cruz, et al. The case is being heard in the Second Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division. The judges that are hearing the case are Sheri S. Roman, JJ, Plummer E. Lott, L. Priscilla Hall, and Peter B. Skelos, J.P.

Appeal

A New York Probate Lawyer said Uumberto and Lise Cruz have created a motion for appeal for a case that was originally heard in the Kings County Civil Court in January of 2010. The case was appealed on the 12th of May in 2011 in the Judicial districts, two, eleven, and thirteen. The respondents, Humberto Cruz and Lise Cruz are appealing both of these decisions.

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 4, 2012

Children of Famous Artist Seek Restitution

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is in regards to the estate of Mark Rothko. Kate Rothko and Christopher Rothko are petitioners, while charitable beneficiaries are also cross-petitioners. The respondents are Bernard J. Reis, Theodoros Stamos, Morton Levine, Marlborough Gallery, Inc., Marlborough A.G., and Francis K. Lloyd. The Mark Rothko Foundation, Inc. was listed as an intervener.

The Case

A New York Probate Lawyers said Mark Rothko, a worldwide renowned abstract expressionist artist passed away on February 25, 1970. The petitioners are the artist’s children. The children seek restitution for their father’s estate, both in terms of paintings that were sold by the parties involved, and in financial compensation for the paintings which were already sold to non-party purchases. They also seek to have their legal fees compensated. Essentially, the suit is about whether the children, should have control over their father’s estate, or whether the executors named should. The Attorney General represented the people of New York due to the charitable interest in the case. Reis and Stamos are charged with acting in a conflict of interest, while Levine is charged with negligence regarding the sale of the property. All are charged with not fulfilling their legal obligations correctly.

Published on: May 3, 2012

Lawyer Removes Himself from Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case Leslie Lerman and Lois Lerman were both plaintiff-s appellants. Summerhill Estates, Inc., Michele A. Keagle, Allen M. Robinson, Marleen L. Robinson and Adam C. Robinson are the defendants. Cayuga County is a defendant-respondent.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer said the representation for the appellants put forward a motion which requested that the appellants be given more time to perfect an appeal. The appeal referred to is from an order of the Supreme Court. It was originally logged in the County of Cayuga Clerk’s Office on July 1, 2011. The representation also asked for permission to remove themselves as the legal counsel of the appellants.

Published on: May 3, 2012

Defenant Appeals Jury Verdict

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Scott H. See Jr. is the appellant. Baltic Estates, Inc. are the respondents.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer said this case involves the recovery of damages for personal injuries. There was another action that was tied to this one, but the two were eventually consolidated. With the limitations involved in his brief, the plaintiff makes an appeal against an order issued by the Supreme Court of Dutchess County which was entered in July of 2008. This order denied a motion that the appellant made which moved for the dismissal of a verdict reached by a jury. The conclusion reached by the jury had been on the side of the defendant in regards to the liability in the case. The appellant contends that the majority of the evidence should have lead the jury to rule in his favor instead of falling on the side of the defendant, which he feels is grounds for a new trial. By the same token, he appeals against the judgment made by the court on February 24th, 2009. This ruling was also in favor of the defendant.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Motion to Dismiss Appeal Granted

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the Sharrots Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. is the appellant. Mitchel Eilenberg et al. are listed as the respondents.

A New York Probate Lawyer said this case took place in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The Appellate Division in the Second Judicial Department heard the case, and it ruled on the matter on January 18th of 2012.

Case

Published on: May 2, 2012

Court Rules on Breach of Contract

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the case is Island Estates Management, while the defendant is MBA-Manorhaven, LLC.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer said the plaintiff had an agreement to buy a property from the defendant, based on a contract signed in December of 1998. A deposit of $350000 was placed to secure the purchase, but the final purchase price was to be based on how many units got approved for the subdivision. Island Estates had an option to review the property which was to last 60 days. During that window they could terminate the agreement if they chose. That agreement was extended, in writing, several times, a fact that neither party argues.

Published on: May 1, 2012

Plaintiff Injured at Construction Site

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Michael J. Spence was the plaintiff. The defendants were the Island Estates at Mt. Sinai II, LLC, Gessin Contracting Co., Inc., and Island Estates. Island Estates at Mt. Sinai II and Gessin Contracting were also third-party plaintiffs while Lakeville Industries was listed as a third-party defendant.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer said the primary plaintiff in this case, Michael J. Spence was injured in 2005 when making a delivery of a countertop to a property at the Mount Sinai Island Estates. In the course of the delivery, a rut in the ground caused him to trip, resulting in an injury. Lakeville Industries was the employer of Spence at the time. There are other complaints, separate from this which alleges negligence and violation of labor laws against Lakeville and the third-party complaint accuses Lakeville of negligence and breach of contract, among other things related to improperly protecting and insuring their employees.

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 30, 2012

Court Validates a Will

by Stephen Bilkis

A man filed a motion to withdraw a waiver and consent he did for the legal validation of his cousins will. And, this motion is opposed by the primary representative of the estate and the four charities who are the beneficiaries under certain instruction.

This happened five months after the death of his cousin, he did a waiver and consent; however, an attorney appeared for him a month after, and this is also the return date of the citation in this proceeding, and indicated that he wanted to withdraw his consent for the legal processing of validation of the will. The assets consists of personal property valued more than a million.

The instruction was done when his cousin was about 95 years old. The single page, two-sided tool is a downloadable legal form and does not appear to be attorney supervised. The opposite side of the form shows his shaky and weak signature, and the signature of the two witnesses. One of those witnesses now serves as a primary person appointed to perform the will and formerly served as one of legal guardians. Apparently, the other witness was an aide at the facility where she resided at the time she signed the instruction.