New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer BlogEstates 7
The Hudson Insurance Company is the plaintiff and AK Construction Co. LLC., Panasia Estates INC., and Hement Mehta are the defendants.
The Case
Published on:
Court Discusses Anticipatory Subrogation
Articles Posted in New York City
Published on:
Plaintiff Injured at Construction Site
In this case, Michael J. Spence was the plaintiff. The defendants were the Island Estates at Mt. Sinai II, LLC, Gessin Contracting Co., Inc., and Island Estates. Island Estates at Mt. Sinai II and Gessin Contracting were also third-party plaintiffs while Lakeville Industries was listed as a third-party defendant.
History
A New York Probate Lawyer said the primary plaintiff in this case, Michael J. Spence was injured in 2005 when making a delivery of a countertop to a property at the Mount Sinai Island Estates. In the course of the delivery, a rut in the ground caused him to trip, resulting in an injury. Lakeville Industries was the employer of Spence at the time. There are other complaints, separate from this which alleges negligence and violation of labor laws against Lakeville and the third-party complaint accuses Lakeville of negligence and breach of contract, among other things related to improperly protecting and insuring their employees.
Published on:
Court Decides Legality of Real Estate Contract
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.
Published on:
Court Hears Real Property Case
In this case, the Bay Street Landing Home Owners Association is the Plaintiff, while the defendants include PDR Bay Street/St. George, LLC, Philip Ressa and Estates at Bay Street Landing, LLC.
History
A New York Probate Lawyer asked the plaintiff asked for a summary judgement for $300000 and interest. The defendants once owned 130 Bay Street Landing in Staten Island New York. Counterclaims were also laid by the defendants. Ressa was once a principal in PDR and a guarantor for the Promenade Fund for the HOA. He sued another principal and guarantor, Dominick Marino, and two others: Leib Puretz and Tovia Mermelstein. Those two moved for summary judgment in favor of the defendant. They also asked that Ressa’s lawyer be disqualified because he might need to be a witness.
Published on:
Defendant Requests More Time for Appeal
This case involved Plaro Estates, Inc. as the appellant. The Assessor, et al. and the Town of Clarkstown were respondents, while the Clarkstown Central School District #1 was the nonparty-respondent.
History
Under the terms of 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2), the appellant made a request to gain more time for an appeal. A New York Probate Lawyer said the request was in regards to an order from the Supreme Court in Rockland County. The original order was issued on April 15th of 2011, and the appellant requested more time to perfect their appeal.
Published on:
Court Orders Consolidation of Cases
In this case, Homewood Garden Estates, LLC is the respondent, while Dena Kirby is the Appellant.
The Case
In this case, the appellant moved to have other appeals consolidated. The two appeals in question were both logged in the Civil Court of the City of New York in Kings County. A New York Probate Lawyer said the respective dates of the two orders in question were January 6, 2011 and February 17th of the same year.
Published on:
Was Fraud Involved in Will Execution?
In 1958, a woman from Salamanca, New York died and left her surviving two sons and daughter, all of full age, and several grandchildren. A document purporting to be the last will and testament of the deceased, with a petition for validation was duly filed with the court. The will submitted for validation was drafted by an attorney of Salamanca, New York, a man with many years of experience as a practicing attorney and was witnessed by the attorney and a young woman employed by the drafter of the will. In the proceeding, the petitioner seeks permission of the court to withdraw his waiver of citation consenting to the validation of the will of the deceased.
The petition for probate of will was verified by one of the two sons of the deceased, and accompanying the petition was the waiver and consent of the son which consents that the paper writing bearing date 1955 purporting to be the last will and testament of the deceased to be admitted to validation.
A New York Probate Lawyer said a citation was duly issued, addressed to the surviving daughter of the deceased, and proof of due service upon the said daughter and proof of mailing notice of validation to the other heirs was filed. The petition was verified; the waiver of citation was signed and verified the same date which also is the date of death of the deceased. The citation was returnable before the court at the court room in the forenoon of that day, but at the request of the proponent, the matter was adjourned and re-adjourned from time to time until the subscribing witnesses were examined.
Published on:
Court Rules on No Contest Provision of the Will
This issue was brought to the court to extend the time to file objections in validation of the will and a motion for construction of the provision. This is concerning the legal proving of the will of a woman who died, leaving a taxable estate of almost two million dollars. The most recent will dated, two weeks before his death has been offered for validation by the appointed representative. However, the prior will has been filed with the court. Petitioner and several other interested parties have examined the witnesses. The court has extended the time for filing objections pending a decision on the construction issue.
A New York Probate Lawyer said the petitioner to the recent will, prays for a resolution that the no-contest provision does not apply to the other heirs, who include a foundation itself and a number of charities. The other organization supports the foundation’s position and has submitted an affidavit containing information that the no-contest provision is not directed to the charities. The woman’s grand-niece and other beneficiary have opposed the requested relief.
The recent will contains several gifts to individuals and charities of either specific dollar amounts, or items of tangible personal property, or a combination of both. New York City Probate Lawyers said in addition, the will sets up trust for her grand-niece and places another in trust for her sons. The grand-niece receives tangible personal effects and the house.
Published on:
Court Decides if Decedent was Under Undue Influence at Will Signing
The petitioners in this case have filed a motion for summary judgment which will dismiss the public administrator’s objections. The petitioners are also seeking the admission of the testator’s will for probate.
Before the death of the testator, he had been living in a facility for the elderly for many years. One of the two petitioners in this case is the current administrator of the elderly home. The other petitioner held the position of director of the same place. As co-executors of the will, the entire estate of the decedent will go to them.
Upon learning of the will, the petitioners have filed for probate but the public administrator prevents the action. The public administrator is obliged under the law to become one of the parties in litigation. The objections were raised because during that time, the decedent allegedly did not have the ability to draft a testament. The public administrator also made allegations that the contested will was only written because of the undue influence of the petitioners.
Published on:
Petitioner’s Request for Injunctive Relief Denied
The following estate litigation was filed by the proponent. The proponent in this case is one of the three daughters of the testator. In her petition, she wanted to revoke the administration letters that were given to her sister. Because of this incident, the two sisters of the proponent had filed a motion against the proponent in to prevent her from submitting the testator’s will for probate.
The mother and now the deceased had resided in another country. One of the daughters of the deceased had requested letters of administration. In her petition, the sister had asserted that her mother was named as the distributee of the property of the proponent’s brother. The petition also indicated that the bank handling the estate administration did not perform its duty to distribute the proceeds of the estate to the others.
A New York Probate Lawyer said the two sisters gave consent to the appointment of their brother. The letters of administration were sent to the petitioner while the other sister defaulted since she was not in the city during that time. But she did receive the letter.