Articles Posted in Queens

A New York Probate Lawyer said in this accounting proceeding are the issues of attorney fees and accountant fees. The Public Administrator also seeks approval of commissions. In addition, the Public Administrator asks for approval to disallow the claims of several hospitals, various healthcare corporations and two insurance corporations on the grounds that each claimant has failed to submit documentary evidence sufficient to substantiate any such claim and failed to complete and return the Affidavit of Claim provided to each claimant by the Public Administrator. The Public Administrator also asks for authorization to distribute the sum of $1,781.28 to the New York State Comptroller’s Office for the benefit of the unknown holder in due course of a money judgment entered by the First District Court of Nassau County in favor of a bank. Lastly, the Public Administrator asks to be released from the surety bond.

A New York Will Lawyer said the decedent man died intestate as a resident of Nassau County. Letters of Estate Administration were issued to the Public Administrator. The decedent was survived by three siblings. The summary statement shows charges to the accounting party of $30,141.29.

With respect to the issue of attorney fees, the court bears the ultimate responsibility for approving legal fees that are charged to an estate and has the discretion to determine what constitutes reasonable compensation for legal services rendered in the course of an estate. While there is no hard and fast rule to calculate reasonable compensation to an attorney in every case, the Surrogate Court is required to exercise his or her authority with reason, proper discretion and not arbitrarily.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, in this accounting by the Public Administrator of Nassau County as administrator of the decedent’s estate, the issue of kinship was referred to a referee pursuant to SCPA 506. All parties stipulated to waive the report of the referee and to allow kinship issues to be decided by the court based upon the transcripts of the hearing, the documentary evidence and the arguments made by the attorney for the claimants and the guardian ad litem representing the interests of missing and unknown persons. Also before the court is the settlement of the Public Administrator’s account for the period from August 26, 2005 to August 31, 2007, as brought current through August 31, 2009, as well as the legal fees of the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem has filed a report dated April 23, 2010 in which she states that she has no objections to the account as brought current and which she finds to be complete. In her report, the guardian ad litem also makes certain conclusions regarding kinship that are discussed below.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, the decedent died intestate, a resident and domiciliary of Nassau County, on August 26, 2005. Letters of administration issued to the Public Administrator on October 7, 2005. The account, as brought down to date, shows total charges of $621,723.92, total credits of $147,469.51 and a balance on hand of $474,254.41. Objections to the account were filed by two individuals who claim to be distributees of the decedent. They objected to the Public Administrator’s request to distribute the net estate to the New York State Comptroller for the benefit of the decedent’s unknown distributees and asked for a hearing to establish kinship.

The issue in this case is whether the claimant’s objection to the Public Administrator’s request to distribute the net estate to the New York State Comptroller for the benefit of the decedent’s unknown distributees and asked for a hearing to establish kinship should be granted.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, petitioners are who are, respectively, the suspended co-executor and the temporary co-administrators of the Estate of the decedent (hereinafter the estate). Respondent is the suspended co-executor of the estate. Petitioners commenced these proceedings to remove respondent as co-executor and to surcharge him for his self-dealing with respect to an estate asset consisting of a partial interest in a limited partnership known as North Shore Mart. Petitioners appeal and respondent cross-appeals from an order of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, which, following a reference of factual issues on respondent’s accounting, confirmed the report of the referee and made additional determinations on issues not addressed by the referee.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, insofar as pertinent to this appeal, the Surrogate ordered respondent to reconvey to the estate administration a 36.4285% interest in North Shore Mart; ordered that such reconveyance be in the nature of a limited partnership interest rather than a general partnership interest or tenancy in common; denied the estate’s request for reconveyance of an additional 6.0715% interest in the partnership; awarded the estate a judgment of $1,152,645.82 plus interest, representing (after offset) the estate’s interest (36.4285%) in amounts diverted by respondent from the partnership to himself and his wife; denied without prejudice the estate’s claim to recover tax benefits (for partnership losses) that the estate would have realized but for respondent’s misappropriation of its interest in the partnership; denied the estate’s request to recover for the unnecessary interest expense incurred by the partnership as a result of his diversion of partnership assets; deferred the estate’s request for an award of attorney’s and accountant’s fees; denied the estate’s request for an award of punitive damages; denied the estate’s request for costs and disbursements; and ordered respondent to pay one-half of the referee’s fees.

A Long Island Probate Lawyer said that, on appeal the estate contends that it is entitled to reconveyance of a 42.5% interest in North Shore Mart; that such reconveyance must be in the form of a general partnership interest or tenancy in common; that it is entitled to a judgment equal to 42.5% of amounts diverted from the partnership by respondent; that the estate is entitled to other amounts, including a proportionate share of interest paid as a result of unnecessary borrowing by the partnership and compensation for tax benefits the estate would have realized but for respondent’s misappropriation; and that it is entitled to additional relief, including attorney’s and accountant’s fees, punitive damages, referee’s fees, and costs and disbursements. On his cross appeal, Saul challenges the Surrogate’s award to the estate of a money judgment and of an interest in the partnership at its present value.

Continue reading

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, the decedent died on June 4, 1931, a resident of Nassau County. His will dated November 26, 1930 was admitted to probate by decree dated June 15, 1931. The will created a trust for the benefit of the beneficiary under Article ELEVENTH. Letters of trusteeship originally issued to. The beneficiary died on August 30, 1989, a resident of New York County, leaving a will and codicil which was admitted to probate by the Surrogate’s Court of New York County by decree dated October 6, 1989. At the time of her death, the trustees of the trust were the beneficiary and the Bank.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, pursuant to Subdivision A of Article ELEVENTH of the decedent’s will, the trust is to be administered and disposed of as follows: “A. If my said daughter shall survive me, to invest and from time to time reinvest said share and to collect the income thereof, and during the life of my said daughter apply the net income thereof to the use of my said daughter by payment thereof to her, and IN FURTHER TRUST upon the death of my said daughter to pay and distribute the principal of the trust estate so held to and among the lawful issue of my said daughter who shall survive my said daughter and the lawful issue of my said son, who shall survive my said daughter, in such amounts, equal or unequal, as my said daughter in her uncontrolled discretion may, by last will and testament duly admitted to probate and not otherwise, appoint, expressly granting to my said daughter the right in the exercise of such power of appointment to exclude wholly from participation therein any one or more of her issue and/or any one or more of the issue of my said son; provided, however, that my said daughter, by last will and testament duly admitted to probate and not otherwise, may on such terms and conditions as she may think fit appoint any part or parts of the principal of said trust estate to a trustee or trustees in trust for the use of any of the lawful issue of my said daughter born before my death and her surviving, or of any of the lawful issue of my said son born before my death and her surviving, during the life of the cestui que trust of each trust so created, or for such lesser period as she may think fit.”

A Staten Island Probate Lawyer said that, the decedent daughter was survived by her three children,. In accordance with the decedent’s exercise of her power of appointment, Chemical Bank divided the principal of the decedent trust into three equal shares and held one such share in separate further trust for each of her children. This is an accounting with respect to the sub-trust for the benefit of the child. A Nassau Estate Administration Lawyer said that, by decree dated April 6, 1992, was appointed to serve as co-trustee of the fist child sub-trust with Manhattan Bank (successor by merger to Chemical Bank). By order dated February 27, 2008, this court approved the resignation of the Bank, as co-trustee of the sub-trust for the first child and the appointment of the decedent. The presumptive remainder men of the sub-trust for the benefit of the first child/son, the decedent’s great-grandchildren, all of whom are adults. Citation issued to all of the presumptive remainder men, as a successor trustee of the sub-trust. None of them have appeared in this proceeding.

Continue reading

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, this is a proceeding brought by the executor of the estate of her father, to determine the validity of a claim made by the Nassau County Department of Social Services against the estate for public assistance rendered to wife of the decedent, from June 10, 1996 to October 3, 2002, while he was still alive. The couples had two children, who is mentally retarded. On August 11, 1972, the decedent was shot four times in what the executor described as a “bungled mob” assassination attempt. According to newspaper articles, the gunman mistook the decedent and three others for the mobsters he intended to kill. The decedent suffered serious injuries that left him unable to work for the remainder of his life. He began receiving Social Security disability benefits in January 1976 and, also received a Worker’s Compensation award.

A New York Will Lawyer said that the, wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in 1992. On December 22, 1995, the decedent, as attorney-in-fact for his wife, executed an “Assignment to Petition the Court for Support Pursuant to 18 NYCRR 360-3.2.” It states that, in consideration of the medical assistance and care provided and to be provided to the wife by the New York State and Nassau County Departments of Social Services, she assigned to the Nassau County Department of Social Services (DSS) “so much of her right, title and interest to petition the court for support from my legally responsible spouse.” The decedent as the wife’s spouse, executed a “Declaration of the Legally Responsible Relative” on January 4, 1996. It states, “I, declare that I refuse to make my income and/or resources available for the cost of necessary medical care and services for the Medicaid applicant/recipient listed above.”

A Staten Island Probate Lawyer said the wife began receiving Medicaid on June 10, 1996 when she was placed in a nursing home. The record before the court includes a “Medical Assistance Institutionalized Spouse Budget Worksheet,” which was signed on March 11, 1997 by a representative of DSS. The worksheet bears the date of March 12, 1997 and lists the date of application as April 18, 1996.

Continue reading