New York City

Published on: May 25, 2012

Court Concludes Petitioner Has No Jurisidiction Over Will

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Surrogate’s Court of New York County. The case is regarding the estate of Marvin G. Connally. The executors of the estate are George H. Ryniker & Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York. The others involved in this case are Jean M. Denis, and Donald T. Mullane who is acting as the special guardian for Mary S. Hicks and the others who are infants.

Case Background

A New York Probate Lawyer said the testator died on the 26th of December in 1960. On the 9th of January a petition for probate was filed in this court. This included two testamentary instruments. The petition stated that the testator lived at 475 Park Avenue in New York City. It also stated that the distributees were his three children.

Published on: May 25, 2012

Peittioner Challenges Jurisdiction of Probate Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a probate case involving the last will and testament of Daniel Joseph Roach. The case is being heard in the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk County in the state of New York. The petitioner and proponent in the case is Mary A. Hennessy. She is represented by Joseph L. Callahan. The respondent in the case is Daniel Joseph Roach Jr. He is represented by the law firm of Fennelly & Fennelly from New York City.

The respondent in this case, Daniel J. Roach Jr. is appearing especially in front of this court to challenge the jurisdiction in regard to the probate proceeding of the decedent, Daniel Joseph Roach. The respondent states that at the time of his death, Daniel Joseph Roach was a resident of Kings County and therefore the probate should be held in the Kings County Surrogate Court.

Facts of the Case

Published on: May 21, 2012

Court Discusses HUD Rules

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 29, 2010, a building owner from 1165 Evergreen Avenue in the Bronx, New York filed a motion to evict the resident of one of their apartments. A New York Probate Lawyer said the property owner claims that the person who leased an apartment from them has failed to pay her rent from April 2006 until March 2010. Apparently the leaser had been making only partial payments and at the time of the motion, the renter was $1183.94 behind on their rent. When the property owner filed the motion they also stated that the rent had been $25.00 short each month during the time listed. The property owner stated that if the amount was not paid by April of 2010, that the amount would need to be raised to $1418.94 which would include the late rent and $210.00 for legal fees.

The court set a hearing date, however the renter did not appear for that hearing. The property owner filed a motion for summary judgment. The court decided to review the litigation history between the parties and discovered that there had been four other cases filed between these two parties during the time span going back to 2006 which is also covered by this particular petition. A Staten Island Probate Lawyer said the court determined that the renter would only be behind in rent that was left unpaid through May of 2010 of $375.00. The court decided not to issue an eviction notice for five days so that the renter could have time to pay the amount determined by the court. On May 26, 2010, the renter applied for an order to show cause to cancel the default judgment.

The renter filed three more motions trying to keep from being evicted from the apartment. On August 11, 2010, the renter applied for an additional order and supported the approval of the original $1308.94. The court granted the motion on August 25, 2010. Both parties at that time agreed that the renter owed the property owner $1308.94. That amount would cover any amount that was not paid to the property owner through August.

Published on: May 21, 2012

Court Interpretes Zoning Ordinance

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainant operates a manufactured home park on real estate he owns in a residential zone in Chemung County. Residents of the park place manufactured homes on lots leased from the complainant. A New York Probate Lawyer said in 2009, the complainant’s estate administration manager approached the accused, the Town Enforcement Officer, to inquire about obtaining a building permit to install a manufactured home owned by the complainant on a lot in the park to be offered for sale to the public. The accused Town Enforcement Officer advised the complainant that the proposal was a commercial use prohibited by the Town Zoning Code. The complainant then applied to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation of the ordinance. After a public hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeals determined that the complainant’s proposed use was prohibited. The complainant commenced the proceeding to annul the determination and Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The complainant appealed.

The Town Zoning Code defines a manufactured home park as a parcel of land under single ownership which is improved for the placement of mobile homes and manufactured homes for non-transient use and which is offered to the public of two or more mobile and manufactured homes. In a provision entitled Commercial Sale of Mobile and Manufactured Homes, the zoning ordinance provides that a mobile and manufactured home park shall be established for the purpose of permitting habitation of such mobile or manufactured homes. Bronx Probate Lawyers said no sales lot or area shall be used for the purpose of selling mobile or manufactured homes. Relying upon the emphasized language, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that the complainant’s proposal to place an unoccupied manufactured home on a lot for sale would have the effect of transforming the said residential lot into a dedicated lot or area for the commercial sale of a mobile home and was an illegal commercial sale of a mobile home within a residential district. The Zoning Board of Appeals further distinguished the complainant’s proposal from sales of mobile homes by individual owners in anticipation of moving and finding that such casual sales did not violate the ordinance but nonetheless would have to be monitored on a case by case basis.

The Supreme Court accorded deference to the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but that heightened standard was not merited. Brooklyn Probate Lawyers said a fact-based interpretation of a zoning ordinance that determines its application to a particular use of property is entitled to great deference. However, deference is not required when reviewing a pure legal interpretation of terms in an ordinance. The meaning of the term sales lot or area in the ordinance at issue presents a purely legal question in which no deference to the Zoning Board of Appeal’s interpretation is required.

Published on: May 6, 2012

Court Dismisses Appeal on Proceedural Grounds

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs and appellants in this case are Leslie Lerman and Lois Lerman. Summerhill Estates, Inc, Adam C. Robinson, Marleen L. Robinson, Allen M. Robinson, and Michele A. Keagle are the defendants of the case. Cayuga County is the defendant and respondent in the case.

A New York Probate Lawyer said this appeal case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the Appellate Division. The judges overseeing the case are P. J. Smith, Scudder, Fahey, Centra, and Peradotto, JJ. The case is being heard on the 25th of October in 2011.

Respondents Case

Published on: May 5, 2012

Defendant Files Motion for Appeal

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner for this particular case is Carlton Estates, Inc. The respondents of the case are Humberto Cruz, et al. The case is being heard in the Second Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division. The judges that are hearing the case are Sheri S. Roman, JJ, Plummer E. Lott, L. Priscilla Hall, and Peter B. Skelos, J.P.

Appeal

A New York Probate Lawyer said Uumberto and Lise Cruz have created a motion for appeal for a case that was originally heard in the Kings County Civil Court in January of 2010. The case was appealed on the 12th of May in 2011 in the Judicial districts, two, eleven, and thirteen. The respondents, Humberto Cruz and Lise Cruz are appealing both of these decisions.

Published on: May 5, 2012

Appellant Requests Extension for Filing Appeal

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Plaro Estates, Inc. is the appellant. The Town of Clarkstown and the Clarkstown Central School district are the respondents.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer said Plaro Estates moves to expand the time allowed for perfecting its appeal. They move for this based on 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2). The original appeal’s deadline stems from the Rockland County Supreme Court’s ruling which was dated on the 15th of April, 2011.

Published on: May 4, 2012

Children of Famous Artist Seek Restitution

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is in regards to the estate of Mark Rothko. Kate Rothko and Christopher Rothko are petitioners, while charitable beneficiaries are also cross-petitioners. The respondents are Bernard J. Reis, Theodoros Stamos, Morton Levine, Marlborough Gallery, Inc., Marlborough A.G., and Francis K. Lloyd. The Mark Rothko Foundation, Inc. was listed as an intervener.

The Case

A New York Probate Lawyers said Mark Rothko, a worldwide renowned abstract expressionist artist passed away on February 25, 1970. The petitioners are the artist’s children. The children seek restitution for their father’s estate, both in terms of paintings that were sold by the parties involved, and in financial compensation for the paintings which were already sold to non-party purchases. They also seek to have their legal fees compensated. Essentially, the suit is about whether the children, should have control over their father’s estate, or whether the executors named should. The Attorney General represented the people of New York due to the charitable interest in the case. Reis and Stamos are charged with acting in a conflict of interest, while Levine is charged with negligence regarding the sale of the property. All are charged with not fulfilling their legal obligations correctly.

Published on: May 3, 2012

Lawyer Removes Himself from Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case Leslie Lerman and Lois Lerman were both plaintiff-s appellants. Summerhill Estates, Inc., Michele A. Keagle, Allen M. Robinson, Marleen L. Robinson and Adam C. Robinson are the defendants. Cayuga County is a defendant-respondent.

History

A New York Probate Lawyer said the representation for the appellants put forward a motion which requested that the appellants be given more time to perfect an appeal. The appeal referred to is from an order of the Supreme Court. It was originally logged in the County of Cayuga Clerk’s Office on July 1, 2011. The representation also asked for permission to remove themselves as the legal counsel of the appellants.

Published on: May 2, 2012

Motion to Dismiss Appeal Granted

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the Sharrots Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. is the appellant. Mitchel Eilenberg et al. are listed as the respondents.

A New York Probate Lawyer said this case took place in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The Appellate Division in the Second Judicial Department heard the case, and it ruled on the matter on January 18th of 2012.

Case