Probate & Estate Litigation

Published on: July 26, 2013

Court Discusses Issues Related to Filing of Notice of Election

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an application for an order relieving the petitioner of her default in filing her notice to take an elective share as decedent’s surviving spouse within the time provided and extending her time to file the notice of election. The question presented is whether the provision in EPTL 5-1.1-A (d)(1) that “an election under this section must be made in no event later than two years after the date of decedent’s death” precludes the granting of this uncontested application which was not filed until almost three years after decedent’s death.

A Bronx County Probate lawyer said that the decedent’s distributees are the petitioner, who is his second wife, and two adult children, issue of his first marriage. The decedent’s will was admitted to probate in November 2002 and letters testamentary issued to decedent’s brother. Under the circumstances that existed on the date of decedent’s death, his estate is bequeathed in equal shares to his two children. The petitioner, a resident of Mexico, concedes that she was served with a citation in the probate proceeding by mail in July 2002. She did not file the instant application until January, 2003.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the petitioner’s primary reasons for her delay in seeking to file the notice of election are that counsel for the executor allegedly had informed her that the entire estate consisted of joint accounts that were not testamentary substitutes because the decedent had created them prior to their marriage and that she did not receive the probate citation until more than two years after the date of decedent’s death. Although it took the petitioner a considerable period of time, she eventually obtained jurisdiction over the executor and the two beneficiaries of the estate, and they have interposed no opposition to the relief requested.

Published on: July 25, 2013

Court Rules in Will Contest Action

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said this is an action pursuant to Article 15 of the Real Property Law to compel the determination of claims to certain real property located at Bronx, City of New York. The plaintiff seeks a decree that she is entitled to the title of said premise as against all of the defendants and every person claiming under them. She contends that she is the sole owner in fee of the property entitled to possession of the premises and that she has a good and marketable title acquired by adverse possession.

A Bronx County Probate attorney said that plaintiff acquired title by deed of conveyance from the adminstratrix of herein deceased. Plaintiff is now in possession of the property and occupies same. The defendant, the plaintiff’s grantor, acquired her title by deed of conveyance from her husband in March 1932. Defendant administratrix was in possession until the sale of the property to the plaintiff.

Decedent obtained title to these premises by virtue of a deed from Rosa Belle Christian, his first wife, dated January 16, 1931.

Published on: July 24, 2013

Petitioner Claims Decedent Lacked Capacity in Will Contest Action

by Stephen Bilkis

The decedent, a former court reporter, died at the age of 78 following an almost two-week hospitalization. The propounded instrument was executed one day prior to the decedent’s death, while he was hospitalized. A New York Probate Lawyer said the amended probate petition indicates that the decedent’s distributees are four first cousins, each of whom was served with process. One of the cousins requested that a subpoena duces tecum be “so ordered” by the court in order to obtain the decedent’s hospital records, and her time to file objections was extended to 10 days after the completion of the SCPA 1404 examinations. Ultimately, she did not file objections.

According to a New York Will Lawyer, a judicial subpoena duces tecum issued for the production of the decedent’s hospital records. In addition, SCPA 1404 examinations were conducted of the witnesses to the propounded instrument, as well as of its drafter, a non-attorney who also works in the court system and was a friend of the decedent and the movant. Prior to conducting SCPA 1404 examinations, the objectant filed initial objections asserting that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity, the propounded instrument was not properly executed pursuant to EPTL 3-2.1, and was procured by the undue influence of the movant.

New York City Probate Lawyers said the non-attorney drafter testified at her SCPA 1404 examination that the decedent first spoke about leaving everything to the movant about three years prior to his death, upon his return from a California trip. According to the drafter, the decedent always stated that he knew he should have a will, but he was “superstitious” and believed that, if he signed one, he would die. The decedent also stated repeatedly that the movant was “like a son” to him and he wanted to leave his estate to the movant. Over the years, particularly when the decedent did not feel well and raised the subject, the drafter encouraged the decedent to retain a lawyer to draw up a will or, alternatively, to complete a Blumberg form will and she gave him blank forms, noting that he did not have to sign any draft or form until he felt death was imminent. The drafter, the decedent and the movant were all friends and used to dine together, and the drafter considered the movant to be like “family.” Specifically, although the decedent and the drafter were friendly, each of them had a closer relationship with the movant.

Published on: July 7, 2013

Court Discusses Criminal Intention in Will Forgery Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This was a certiorari case filed before the court by the petitioner, a former war veteran, who was charged and indicted for conversion of government property.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the large tract of Michigan land was used by government for practice bombing range where the Air Force dropped simulated bombs at the ground targets. The range was also known for extensive hunting of deer. The used bomb casings were cleared from the targets and were piled up and dumped in heaps for several years and was exposed to weather conditions and became rusted.

The petitioner went deer hunting in the area and salvaged some of the casings as a means to lessen his expenses for the trip. He loaded three tons of the used bomb casings into his truck and flattened them by a tractor at a nearby farm. He sold the flattened casings to a market. He was a fruit stand operator and a trucker and scrap iron collector.

Published on: July 6, 2013

Plaintiff Petitions for a Rent-Stabilized Lease and Lease Renewal in Perpetuity

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an action for breach of an illegal oral contract to issue plaintiff a rent-stabilized lease and lease renewals, in perpetuity. The complaint filed in April 2004 asserts a right to a renewal lease under a tenancy created by a purported 1992 verbal agreement with defendant landlord’s principal. A New York Probate Lawyer said that the plaintiff allegedly paid $50,000 in consideration of “his understanding and agreement that he would have the right to remain in the apartment for as long as he cared to rent it,” in apparent disregard of whether the apartment was to be used as his primary residence. Defendant alleges that plaintiff maintains his primary residence in Florida.

A New York Wills Lawyer said that, defendant previously brought a holdover proceeding on non-primary residence grounds, which had been pending in Civil Court for two months when plaintiff commenced this action alleging breach of the parol agreement and seeking specific performance and monetary damages of $500,000. A New York Estate Litigation Lawyer said that, plaintiff’s first cause of action seeks specific performance and a permanent injunction against his eviction. The second and third causes of action allege breach of the 1992 oral agreement and seek monetary damages of $500,000 against defendants, respectively, for failing to offer plaintiff a renewal lease in January 2004 and for refusing to extend the term of the lease. The fourth cause of action seeks recovery of the $50,000 paid by plaintiff in 1992, asserting that such payment constitutes an illegal rent overcharge.

A Queens Probate Attorney said that, in the pending Civil Court holdover proceeding to recover possession of the subject dwelling unit, defendant alleged that plaintiff does not use the premises as his primary residence and, apparently, never has. However denominated, the present action seeks to impose upon defendant the obligation to continue the statutory tenancy indefinitely. Because the right to lease renewal can be adjudicated in the Civil Court proceeding and because it is dispositive of the asserted breach of contract, the complaint was properly dismissed on the ground that there is another action pending.

Published on: July 4, 2013

Defendants Fail to Establish Prima Facie Case for Summary Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

Two cases were brought before the court for resolution.

In the first case:

A New York Probate Lawyer said that on 24 July 2006, the Supreme Court of New York County rendered judgment granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment only to the extent of precluding plaintiff from asserting any claims for legal fees incurred in the prosecution of the action, and denied the defendant’s application to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for consequential damages based on the alleged breach of duty. The defendant appealed.

Published on: July 3, 2013

Court Discusses Public Policy Concerns Regarding Rent Stablization

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said this is an action for breach of an illegal oral contract to issue plaintiff a rent-stabilized lease and lease renewals, in perpetuity. The complaint filed in April 2004 asserts a right to a renewal lease under a tenancy created by a purported 1992 verbal agreement with defendant landlord’s principal. Plaintiff allegedly paid $50,000 in consideration of “his understanding and agreement that he would have the right to remain in the apartment for as long as he cared to rent it,” in apparent disregard of whether the apartment was to be used as his primary residence. Defendant alleges that plaintiff maintains his primary residence in Florida.

A New York Estate Litigation Lawyer said that, defendant previously brought a holdover proceeding on non-primary residence grounds, which had been pending in Civil Court for two months when plaintiff commenced this action alleging breach of the parol agreement and seeking specific performance and monetary damages of $500,000. A New York Estate Litigation Lawyer said that, plaintiff’s first cause of action seeks specific performance and a permanent injunction against his eviction. The second and third causes of action allege breach of the 1992 oral agreement and seek monetary damages of $500,000 against defendants, respectively, for failing to offer plaintiff a renewal lease in January 2004 and for refusing to extend the term of the lease. The fourth cause of action seeks recovery of the $50,000 paid by plaintiff in 1992, asserting that such payment constitutes an illegal rent overcharge.

A Westchester County Probate Lawyer said that, in the pending Civil Court holdover proceeding to recover possession of the subject dwelling unit, defendant alleged that plaintiff does not use the premises as his primary residence and, apparently, never has. However denominated, the present action seeks to impose upon defendant the obligation to continue the statutory tenancy indefinitely. Because the right to lease renewal can be adjudicated in the Civil Court proceeding and because it is dispositive of the asserted breach of contract, the complaint was properly dismissed on the ground that there is another action pending.

Published on: July 2, 2013

Court Hears Action for Ejectment

by Stephen Bilkis

Two cases were brought before the court for resolution.

In the first case:

On 24 July 2006, the Supreme Court of New York County rendered judgment granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment only to the extent of precluding plaintiff from asserting any claims for legal fees incurred in the prosecution of the action, and denied the defendant’s application to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for consequential damages based on the alleged breach of duty. The defendant appealed.

Published on: July 1, 2013

Court Discusses Labor Law Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant third-party plaintiff, corporation-one, owned real property where it was building a group of town houses. It hired the third-party defendant, corporation-two, to perform carpentry work and hired the defendant corporation-three to perform roofing work.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the plaintiff, an undocumented alien, was an employee of corporation-two. While standing on a makeshift scaffold, constructing a staircase between the second and third floors inside one of the new townhouses, the plaintiff was struck by a package of shingles that fell from the roof through an opening created for a skylight. The impact caused the scaffold to collapse, and the plaintiff fell to the basement, resulting in severe and permanent injuries, broken bones, head and neck injuries, and the like.

Consequently, a New York Will Lawyer said the plaintiff commenced a personal injury against corporation-one and corporation-three and sought to recover damages for the injuries he sustained in the aforesaid construction accident. Plaintiff asserted causes of action based on common-law negligence and violations of the Labor Law. In a cross claim against corporation-three, and in a third-party action against corporation-two, corporation-one sought contractual and common-law indemnification.

Published on: June 30, 2013

Probate Court Reverses Summary Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

The order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court which reversed a judgment of the New York County Civil Court in tenant’s favor was unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the landlord’s petition is dismissed.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the evidence presented to the trial court amply supported its conclusion that the respondent’s relationship with the now deceased tenant of record was that of a nontraditional family member, as defined in Rent Stabilization Code wherein any other person residing with the tenant or permanent tenant in the housing accommodation as a primary or principal residence, respectively, who can prove emotional and financial commitment, and interdependence between such person and the tenant or permanent tenant. Although no single factor shall be solely determinative, evidence which is to be considered in determining whether such emotional and financial commitment and interdependence existed may include, without limitation, such factors as longevity of the relationship or sharing of or relying upon each other for payment of household or family expenses, and/or other common necessities of life. Another factor is intermingling of finances as evidenced by, among other things, joint ownership of bank accounts, personal and real property, credit cards, loan obligations, sharing a household budget for purposes of receiving government benefits. Engaging in family-type activities by jointly attending family functions, holidays and celebrations, social and recreational activities are yet another factor to be considered. Another factor is formalizing of legal obligations, intentions, and responsibilities to each other by such means as executing wills naming each other as executor and/or beneficiary, granting each other a power of attorney and/or conferring upon each other authority to make health care decisions each for the other, entering into a personal relationship contract, making a domestic partnership declaration, or serving as a representative payee for purposes of public benefits.

A Queens Probate Lawyer said the court will also consider when the person residing with the tenant is holding themselves out as family members to other family members, friends, members of the community or religious institutions, or society in general, through their words or actions or if the person is regularly performing family functions, such as caring for each other or each other’s extended family members, and/or relying upon each other for daily family services; or if the person residing with the tenant is engaging in any other pattern of behavior, agreement, or other action which evidences the intention of creating a long-term, emotionally committed relationship. In no event would evidence of a sexual relationship between such persons be required or considered.