The Facts:
On 17 October 1967, a husband and a wife (“wife-one”) executed a joint will.
On 27 September 1971, the wife died and the joint will, insofar as her estate was concerned, was admitted to probate in Kings County (for estate administration; estate litigation). At the time of her death, the husband and the wife owned as tenants by the entirety, two parcels of real estate and had a bank account in their joint names in a Brooklyn bank.
The Facts:
Sometime in 1936, plaintiff and his wife (the deceased), residents of Kings County, entered into an agreement to execute mutual reciprocal and irrevocable wills which neither of the parties was to alter, cancel or revoke without the written consent of the other. The wills were accordingly executed.
In 1954, the wife executed another will. In her will, she devised and bequeathed all her estate, both real and personal, to plaintiff husband.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, in which the accused Medical Center commenced a third-party action against the woman as successor executor of the estate of her husband. The woman appeals from an order of the Supreme Court which denied her motion to dismiss the third-party complaint based upon her allegation that her status as personal representative of the estate of her husband was terminated by operation of law.
New York Probate Lawyers said that on July 18, 2002, the complainant underwent surgery at the Medical Center and the woman’s husband served as the complainant’s anesthesiologist. The anesthesiologist died and his father, as the executor of the anesthesiologist’s estate, petitioned the Surrogate’s Court to have the will admitted to probate. The petition to admit the will to probate stated that the anesthesiologist died while a resident of New York, and that his wife was named in the will as successor executor. By decree, the will was admitted to probate and letters testamentary were issued to the anesthesiologist’s father. Thereafter, the father died.
The complainants commenced the main action against the Medical Center. The Medical Center commenced the instant third-party action against the wife, as successor executor of the anesthesiologist’s estate, seeking common-law indemnification. Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said the complainant, a resident of Colorado, retained Colorado attorneys. On behalf of their client, the law firm entered into a stipulation with the Medical Center, in which the complainant admitted that she was served with the third-party summons and complaint, and stated that the third-party summons and complaint would be forwarded to the medical malpractice insurance carrier for the anesthesiologist. The stipulation also stated that the Medical Center will seek no recovery from the Estate of the anesthesiologist except to the extent of any professional liability insurance available to the Estate of the deceased anesthesiologist.
The Facts:
On 13 October 2006, a decedent died without a spouse or children and leaving a will dated 5 September 1986. Under the will, in the event that one of the decedent’s brothers (“the brother”), who is the nominated executor, and the decedent’s nephew, the first named contingent executor, predeceased the decedent, failed to qualify, or if the office of executor is otherwise vacant, the decedent’s niece is nominated as the contingent executor.
The first named contingent executor did, in fact, predecease the decedent. Thus, the decedent’s niece is nominated as the contingent executor.
This is a probate case regarding the last will and testament of Edith A. Johansen. The case is being held in the Surrogate’s Court of the State of New York in the county of Nassau.
Application
This case is a request for application for preliminary letters testamentary. A New York Probate Lawyer said the decedent, Edith A. Johansen passed away on the 14th of December in 2005. She left behind a will that was dated the 13th of September, 2005. There was a will made prior to this time that is dated the 24th of January, 2003. The will from 2003 names the daughter Karen Colossale of the decedent as the executor of the estate and the decedent’s other daughter Maureen Erickson as the successor executor. The will from 2005 names Karen as the executor as well. Additionally, Linda Johansen the decedent’s other daughter survives as well.
The case is a matter of judicial settlement regarding the proceedings of Ellis T. Terry, who is the administrator of the credits, chattels, and goods that belonged to Christian Krabbe, who is the deceased. The case is being heard in the Surrogates Court of Suffolk County.
Proceeding
This proceeding involves Ellis T. Terry, who was the Public Administrator for Suffolk County. A New York Probate Lawyer said the case deals with a judicial settlement for his accounts as the administrator of the estate. This includes judicial determination of the identity of the distributees of the decedent and a judicial determination in respect to certain claims that have been made. He is also seeking authorization for the sale of real property owned by the decedent.
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.
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.
In this case, David Preminger is the plaintiff. The Jamaica Estates Holding Corporation is the defendant-appellant. Mark Labib et al. are third party plaintiffs-respondents. The Jamaica Estates Holding Corporation et al. are third party defendant-appellants, while Schrier Fiscella and Sussman, LLC is another third-party defendant.
History
On May 16th of 2008, the Supreme Court of New York County issued an order regarding a real-estate contract. A New York Probate Lawyer this granted the request that had been made by David Preminger for a summary judgement. He had requested that the real-estate contract be closed within 60 days of the Supreme Court issuing its conclusion. Jamaica Estates made a counter-motion which requested that this claim be dismissed, but the counter-motion was denied.
In 1924, a woman died a resident of New York County leaving a will which was validated in New York County. In her will, she created a trust, the income of which was to go to her brother for life, the remainder to his next of kin, subject, however, to a power in him to make a different disposition by a general power of appointment in his will.
Her brother, the designated life beneficiary and heir of the power, was an American-born citizen who resided in Germany with his German wife and three German children for many years preceding his death there. In the fall of 1939, allegedly because he ‘was worried about the possibility that the German Government would confiscate the trust, he executed a will in which he exercised his power of appointment in favor of the petitioner. The will was executed in the German language and was formally valid under the law of Germany. At the suggestion of his son, the will was delivered for safekeeping into the hands of a notary in Berlin where it was placed in an office safe.
A New York Probate Lawyer said that in 1943, four years after the brother executed the will; the New York trustee of the Foster trust was served by the Alien Property Custodian with Vesting Order which vested in the United States Government the entire interest of the brother and his next of kin in the trust. Shortly thereafter, more than two years before he died, the building in Berlin in which his will was being stored was burned to the ground in a bombing raid and the will was destroyed.
New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog