New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog
A Probate Lawyer said that, in a probate proceeding in which the administrator, in effect, petitioned pursuant to SCPA 1809 to determine the validity of certain claims against the estate of the decedent, also known as the petitioner appeals from (1) an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated April 27, 2009, which, in effect, denied that branch of the petition which was to invalidate the claim of the claimant, and directed that claimant be reimbursed in the sum of $4,474 for payment of the decedent’s funeral expenses, and (2) an order of the same court dated May 13, 2009, which denied her motion to vacate the order dated April 27, 2009.
A Kings Will Contest Lawyer said that in another case is (1) from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, entered July 8, 1965, as denied his cross motion for leave to take the further oral deposition of two persons as witnesses pursuant to statute (CPLR 3101, subd. [a], par. 4; 3111); and (2) from an order of said court, entered September 2, 1965, upon re-argument, which adhered to the original decision. Order entered September 2, 1965, affirmed with a separate bill of $10 costs and disbursements to the respondent and to the Special Guardian, each payable out of the estate. No opinion. Appeal from order, entered July 8, 1965, dismissed, without costs. The appeal was untimely taken. Appellant admitted receiving notice of entry of said order on July 13, 1965, yet his notice of appeal therefrom is dated September 9, 1965, clearly beyond the statutory time (CPLR, § 5513, subd. [a]). In any event, said order was superseded by the later order granting re-argument
A New York Estate Lawyer said the Surrogate’s Court properly determined that the claim against the estate by the claimant for reimbursement of the decedent’s funeral expenses, which expenses the petitioner conceded were paid by the claimant, was valid (see SCPA 1809, 1811). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court did not err in declining to consider, in the instant proceeding, the petitioner’s allegation that the claimant, who had been appointed the decedent’s guardian pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 prior to the decedent’s death, had failed to file certain required reports and accountings, and otherwise breached her fiduciary duty as the decedent’s guardian (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.44[g]; see also SCPA 2103).