Published on:

Appellant Brings Motion to Strike Affirmative Defense of Lack of Personal Jurisdiction


This case is taking place in the New York Supreme Court.

Case Background

There are a series of four motions in this particular case. The first motion in this case was originally brought on by the order to show cause in the Queens County court and then transferred to this court. A New York Probate Lawyer said the action is brought forth on behalf of the plaintiff from the third action and requests the reversal of priority depositions made between the defendant and the plaintiff and to direct the defendant to appear for a deposition.

The first motion is also requesting that the court strike the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction because no motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction has been made. It also seeks to compel the counsel of the defendants to produce documents that are allegedly subject to the attorney – client privelage and documents referred to as estate documents for at a minimum an in camera review to be made by the court.

The counsel for the defendants in the third action appear on behalf of the title insurers and cross move by the second motion for leave to amend their answer to insert a ten year statute of limitations to bring forn an action to quite title. Queens Probate Lawyers said the action involves three parcels that are located in Queens. The cross movants alleges that the plaintiff has testified that he has owned 100% of these properties since at least 1963, but there is no documentation provided as evidence that he received the title to the subject properties.

The third motion is brought forth on behalf of plaintiff number two who wishes to have her name reinstated on the Chase Bank Accounts on which she was a prior joint owner. She also wishes to restore her co-signing privileges on these accounts which were allegedly improperly removed. The second plaintiff’s motion also seeks to restrain the defendants from interfering with her property rights in the 58-87 55th street property located in Queens, New York.

Case Discussion and Decision

In regard to restoring the plaintiff’s name on the Chase Bank Accounts the court declines to direct that this action take place. The entitlement to the contents of the account is the relief being sought. The accounts at one time contained $2,000,000. The court will not grant relief to the extent of restricting the distributions from the account for other than the normal course of business.

In regard to the plaintiffs motion to restrain the defendants from the parcel of land in Queens, the court has found two recorded deeds for the parcel. One of the deeds is in the name of the plaintiff and for that reason the court finds no reason that she should not be able to take over the management of the property.

In regard to supplying the plaintiff with a key to the safe located at 127 Nassau Street. Westchester County Probate Lawyers said the plaintiff and defendant are instructed to take an inventory of the safe and as the plaintiff is a 50% share holder of the estate, the defendant is directed to provide her with the key.

The court is advising the plaintiffs and defendants to keep in contact about their plans for the property on a regular basis as a way to avoid further confrontations regarding these matters.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates offer offices located in New York City. You may contact us at any time to set up an appointment to meet with one of our experienced lawyers, whether you need a will, trust, or have an estate litigation issue. We are happy to discuss your legal matter with you during a free consultation.

Contact Information