Articles Posted in Brooklyn

A New York Probate Lawyer said the complainant alleges that she, along with her father and sister are joint tenants with rights of survivorship in a brokerage account maintained at a Securities Company. The account at the Securities Company was transferred to a joint account in a Financial Services Company. The complainant alleges that the joint account assets were transferred without her authorization to an individual account in the name of her father. She contends that the joint account holders’ written transfer authorization contained her forged signature. Two years later, her father died. In her complaint, the complainant wants to recover her lawful share of the funds in the joint and individual accounts.

A New York Will Lawyer said the defendant sister filed a Petition in the Surrogate’s Court for the probate of the decedent’s Last Will and Testament. The complainant was cited in the probate proceeding because she was adversely affected by the Will. The complainant took nothing under the Will. The complainant filed Objections to Probate of the Will in June, 2008. After conducting documentary discovery concerning the Will, the sister and the complainant entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the complainant executed a Withdrawal of Objections to Probate and Consent to Probate. The County Surrogate’s Court then issued a Decree admitting the Will to probate and issued Letters Testamentary to the sister. The consideration passing to the complainant under the Settlement Agreement consisted of personal property with respect to which the complainant claimed ownership. The parties agreed that the consideration referenced in the Agreement satisfied any right that the complainant had to any bequest, legacy, or other entitlement to the property of the Decedent or the Estate, wherever located. The complainant waived an accounting. The parties executed mutual general releases.

Bronx Probate Lawyers said the general release that the complainant executed in favor of her sister individually and in her fiduciary capacity may not be changed orally. The sister-in her individual and fiduciary capacity-executed a mutual release in favor of the complainant. The parties to the Settlement Agreement also agreed that the County Surrogate’s Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction in order to carry out, construe and enforce any of the terms of the Agreement.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, in this proceeding to vacate a decree of probate, the respondent, moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) and (e) renewing and rearguing her motion for an order directing the petitioner, to submit to a court admissible Sibling Full DNA Test at an established laboratory and provide a report of same to the attorneys for respondent. The petitioner, cross moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) and (e) granting renewal and rearguing this court’s decision dated June 29, 2011 (Decision No. 27229), and upon renewal and rearguing, granting the petitioner’s request that the court strike from said decision the language stating that it is conceded and undisputed that petitioner is the decedent’s son.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, the decedent died a resident of Nassau County on February 14, 2010. A will dated October 12, 2006 was admitted to probate and letters testamentary issued to the respondent, on May 6, 2010. The will left the decedent’s residuary estate in equal shares to his son, to his niece, the respondent, and to his nephew.

A Nassau Estate Litigation Lawyer said that, subsequent to the admission of the will to probate, the petitioner, commenced a proceeding, by order to show cause, to vacate the probate decree on the ground that she is a child of the decedent who was not cited in the probate proceeding. The respondent thereafter moved by order to show cause for an order directing the son and the petitioner to take a Sibling Full DNA test. By decision dated June 29, 2011, this court denied respondent s motion, without prejudice, as premature, until a notice for discovery and inspection is served upon his son or until he consents to the test. On July 5, 2011, the son was served with a notice for discovery and inspection for a Sibling Full DNA Test, and on July 6, 2011 he signed a written consent to such test.

Continue reading

On 16 June 2006, the decedent, LS, died and was survived by his wife, MS, and his brother, WS. Allegedly, he left a will dated 11 October 1967. Under the will, the residuary must be equally shared by LS’ mother, H, and his brother, WS, and if either individual predeceased, his or her share to the surviving beneficiary. H predeceased.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that consequently, the will was offered for probate. MS objected to the will’s admission. WS, the brother of the decedent, in turn, moved for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment dismissing the objections and admitting the propounded instrument to probate on the ground that it is genuine and was duly executed, or, in the alternative, admitted to probate under the ancient document rule of evidence.

The objections:

Continue reading

A New York Probate Lawyer this contested probate proceeding the attorneys for the executor, on submission of a final decree for probate, seek an allowance in the amount of $20,000 for attorneys’ fees, to be charged personally against the respondent pursuant to SCPA 2302(3)(a). Respondent likewise seeks an allowance in the amount of $20,000 for expenses incurred in the contest.

A New York Will Lawyer said that this proceeding involved the probate of an instrument dated June 2, 1977 and a codicil dated August 11, 1977, both of which were offered for probate by the decedent’s stepson. The earlier instrument names respondent as executor and trustee. The second instrument names the respondent as executor and trustee, and five alternate executors.

Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said it is undisputed that respondent was the attorney-draftsman of both instruments as well as a witness to the instruments along with his wife. All of the competent beneficiaries consent to probate of the will and codicil and the guardian ad litem for one of the decedent’s daughters has filed a report stating that he can find no basis for objecting to the validity of the instruments.

Continue reading

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, the proponent of the will of the decedent seeks a protective order with respect to a notice to examine under SCPA 1404. The decedent died on July 9, 1995, survived by her daughter, as sole distributee. She was also survived by her granddaughter,. Under the propounded will, dated October 3, 1994, the decedent directed that her entire estate, valued at approximately $250,000, be pored over into a living trust created on the same date. Pursuant to the terms of such trust (which was in effect at her death), the trust property, after payment of $30,000 to a named beneficiary, is to be distributed 40 per cent to her daughter, and 60 per cent to her granddaughter.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, the will was offered for probate by the granddaughter, the named executrix, who is also the trustee of the living trust. It is noted that in an earlier will, dated July 30, 1984, the decedent had left one half of her estate to her husband (the named executor) and the other half equally to her daughter and granddaughter. On March 19, 1991, after her husband’s death, the decedent executed a codicil in which she divided her estate administration equally between her daughter and granddaughter and named the attorney-draftsman as executor.

A Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said that, the attorney, duly made a party to the probate proceeding as executor named in a prior instrument filed with the court (SCPA 1403[1][d], served a notice to examine the draftsman, the attesting witnesses and the proponent of the propounded will. The proponent, however, requests a protective order. At issue is whether and to what extent respondent is entitled to conduct examinations under SCPA 1404.

Continue reading

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, this is a proceeding pursuant to EPTL 8–1.1(c) for an order directing the method of effectuating a testamentary charitable gift in a situation where circumstances have changed since the execution of the will. The court is asked to apply its Cy pres power.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, the petitioners are the trustees of The Sailors’ Harbor in the City of New York, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Harbor’. The application is opposed by the Attorney General of the State of New York as the statutory representative of ultimate charitable beneficiaries. The petition requests permission of the court to relocate the facility presently maintained by the petitioners in Staten Island, New York, to the town of Sea Level, North Carolina. The Harbor is a charitable corporation established by an act of the Legislature of the State of New York pursuant to the will of the deceased admitted to probate by the Surrogate of New York County on July 10, 1801.

A Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said that, in his will decedent directed that there be constructed and operated in perpetuity a home for ‘aged, decrepit and worn out sailors’ to be called The Sailors’ Snug Harbor. The site selected by the testator was real property located in what is now Greenwich Village in the Borough of Manhattan, New York. In 1828 a special act of the Legislature permitted the Harbor to erect its facilities upon the ‘Island of New York, or adjacent thereto’. The Tilden Act (enacted in 1893), later known as Personal Property Law § 12, now known as Estates Powers and Trusts Law Article 8, was not then in effect. The Surrogate now has power, where a disposition is made by will and whenever circumstances have changed since its execution, to direct that a disposition for charitable purposes be applied in such a manner as in the judgment of the court will most effectively accomplish the testator’s charitable intent. This is Cy pres power.

Continue reading