Manhattan

Published on: October 5, 2012

Plaintiff Moves for a Preliminary Injunction

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves Joanne Cornell May as the plaintiff and Craig May as the defendant. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Suffolk County. This action made by the plaintiff started with the filing of a verified complaint made around the 24th of September in 2007. The plaintiff is seeking to recover possession and occupancy of a property located on Old Town Road in Setauket, New York. The defendant in the case is the son of the plaintiff’s husband, John May, who passed away in September of 2007. A New York Probate Lawyer said that there are nine causes of action set forth in this particular case.

Case Background

In this case the nine causes of action include ejectment, recovery of value of use and occupancy of the subject premises, treble damages, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tort, fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment (estate litigation). The plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction that enjoins that defendants use of the subject premises and money for damages.

Published on: September 30, 2012

Petitioner Seeks Repayment of Debt

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with a petition from A.S. The petitioner is attempting to prove that a debt that is due to him by W. S., who is deceased. This matter is being heard before the Surrogates Court located in Queens County.

Case Background

Josephine and William Schweizer executed a joint and mutual will in 1938. In the will William left his entire estate to Josephine upon his passing and in her will Josephine left her entire estate to William upon her passing. Upon the death of the final survivor of the estate the remainder of the estate, excluding specific bequests, was to be left to their two grandchildren, divided equally among them upon them reaching the age of 25.

Published on: September 28, 2012

Court Hears Action for Specific Performance

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with Angelo Licata who is deceased. The appellant of the case is Annette Chessare and the respondents in the case are Cecilia Licata, et al. The case is being heard in the Second Judicial Department, Appellate Division, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

According to a New York Probate Lawyer, a probate proceeding was held and an action for specific performance of a contract to sell real property was transferred from the Supreme Court of Suffolk County to the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk County. The appellant, Annette Chessare is appealing the order from the Surrogates Court dated the fifth of February, 2009 that denied her motion for summary judgment on the complaint made in the action for specific performance and an order from the same court made on the 25th of September, 2009 upon re-argument that adhered to the original decision that was previously made on the fifth of February, 2009.

Court Discussion and Decision

Published on: September 15, 2012

Court Rules on Estate Pursuant to Suffolk County Tax Act

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Special Term of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. The matter deals with Randolph Cowan versus Rose McVey, et al. This is a proceeding under article 15 of Real Property Law. A judgment has been entered that determined the plaintiff’s absolute ownership in the subject premises. The State of New York has moved for the judgment to be vacated, for the right to intervene, and for other relief as well.

Case Background

A New York Probate Lawyer said the complaint in this action shows that on the 17th of November, 1958, the plaintiff obtained an interest in a premises located in this county. The purchase of the premises was made at a tax sale. ON the 16th of November, 1961, the title was vesting in the State of New York as a result of appropriation. A deed was delivered to the plaintiff by the County Treasurer of Suffolk County on the 28th of November, 1961.

Published on: August 14, 2012

Court Looks at Construction of Will

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the court uphold the principle that the intention of the testatrix is of paramount importance which must be respected after it has been presented and admitted to probate. If the executrix intends to dispose the subject property in the will, the court suggested that she may do so through application for the sale of the real property pursuant to sections 233 of the Surrogate’s Court Act.

On October 28, 1931, decedent’s holographic will was admitted to probate on September 25, 1956. In paragraph ‘Third’ of the will, testatrix provided in part as follows: ‘I give to my daughter In trust for her god child and my grand son my home with all furnishings * * *. I positively wish no encumbrance such as a mortgage or lean (sic) to be placed upon this property * * *. This home is not to be rented or leaset for any business whatever. * * *. I give to my daughter * * * to make sure that she may have a home during her life time. At her death this property goes to her God-child * * *.’ The grandson survived testatrix but has since died.

Petitioner seeks permission from the probate court to sell the real property described in the will.

Published on: August 13, 2012

Trustee Requests Division of Trust

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 31 December 1915, a testator died. On 31 March 1916, his will dated 20 October 1915 was admitted to probate. The Kings County Trust Company was granted letters testamentary on 31 March 1916 and letters of trusteeship on 24 October 1934. Under the will, the testator gave his residuary estate to his executor, in trust, to pay the net income arising therefrom to his wife, for and during her life. On 11 March 1959, the testator’s wife died. The will provides that upon the wife’s death, the said trust is to terminate, and the corpus thereof is to go and that the testator gives, devises and bequeaths the same, in equal shares, among his then surviving nephews and nieces, and the issue of any deceased nephew or niece (except issue of one niece), such issue taking in equal shares the share their parent would have taken if living. According to the will, it is the testator’s intention not to make the issue of the lone niece beneficiaries under his will.

Thereafter, the trustee brought the instant proceeding for the judicial settlement of its account. The trustee has requested in its petition that the Court find and determine that, in accordance with the intent of said decedent, as set forth in the will, the net distributable principal of the trust, now terminated, is primarily divisible into four equal major shares, one each for the lawful issue living at such termination and who represent decedent’s deceased nephews and nieces, the issue of each said deceased nephew and niece, respectively, to receive, in equal sub-shares, per stirpes, the equal major share which the deceased nephew or niece whom they represent would have taken, if living; and direct distribution accordingly.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Petitioner Objects to Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter concerning the last will and testament of the deceased Kate Freeman Clark. The case is being heard in the Surrogates Court of Suffolk County.

Motion

The motion that is before the court is to have the probate proceeding in this court dismissed and surrendered to the Chancery Court of Marshal County in the state of Mississippi. The motion asks for this court to give up its jurisdiction in the case. The Surrogate Court of Suffolk County took jurisdiction in this case under section 45 of Subdivision 3 as the decedent left a considerable amount of personal property within this county.

Published on: August 6, 2012

Multiple Parties Seek to be Executor of Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter of probate concerning the will of Evelyn May Hoelzer. The case is being heard in the Surrogate Court of the City of New York in Nassau County. The judge overseeing the hearing is John B. Riordan.

Probate Applications

This is a pending probate proceeding involving the will of Evelyn Hoelzer. There are currently two applications set before the court for preliminary letters testamentary. A New York Probate Lawyer said tne application is from Jeanne Schieck and the other is Richard Hoelzer. Jeanne is the decedent’s niece and Richard is the decedent’s brother.

Published on: August 4, 2012

Court Orders Preliminary Letters Testamentary

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a probate proceeding for the will of the deceased Stuart L. Ain. The case is being heard in the Surrogates Court of the city of New York located in Nassau County. The case is being overheard by Judge John B. Riordan.

Probate Proceeding

Stuart Ain, the decedent passed away on the 28th of October in 2006. He left a will that was dated the 27th of April, 2007. Victor Levin and William J. O’Brien were named as the executors of the will. William J. O’Brien renounced his appointment as executor. Michael and Jody, the decedents two adult children are the sole survivors.

Published on: July 21, 2012

Court Decides Ownership of Property Where Couple was Married Twice

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Special Term of the Suffolk County Supreme Court. The case deals with the will of Gladys Guernsey. The plaintiff in the case is the executor of the last will and testament of Gladys Guernsey, Patrick Beary. The defendants in the case are Leach C. Hoffman and James L. Guernsey. The judge overseeing the case is John P. Cohalan Jr.

Action

A New York Probate Lawyer said the plaintiff is seeking a judgment under Article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceeding Law. He argues that the estate of the decedent, Gladys Guernsey is the owner of three different parcels of real estate located in Lindenhurst, in Suffolk County, New York. The original testatrix in the case passed away on the 11th of July after beginning this action. Patrick Beary was named as executor and is substituted to complete the action.