Queens

Published on: February 22, 2012

Court Decides Case Regarding Lack of Capacity

by Stephen Bilkis

A man filed a motion to withdraw a waiver and consent he did for the legal validation of his cousins will. And, this motion is opposed by the primary representative of the estate and the four charities who are the beneficiaries under certain instruction.

This happened five months after the death of his cousin, he did a waiver and consent; however, an attorney appeared for him a month after, and this is also the return date of the citation in this proceeding, and indicated that he wanted to withdraw his consent for the legal processing of validation of the will. The assets consists of personal property valued more than a million.

The instruction was done when his cousin was about 95 years old. The single page, two-sided tool is a downloadable legal form and does not appear to be attorney supervised. The opposite side of the form shows his shaky and weak signature, and the signature of the two witnesses. One of those witnesses now serves as a primary person appointed to perform the will and formerly served as one of legal guardians. Apparently, the other witness was an aide at the facility where she resided at the time she signed the instruction.

Published on: February 18, 2012

Court Rules on Will Contest

by Stephen Bilkis

The issues being raised in this estate case have two aspects. One issue talks about the objection of probate on the last will and testament of the deceased. Another issue raised on the case was whether the main executor of the will had the right to request for discovery proceeding concerning the property owned by another party.

Before the writer of the will and testament passed away, he drafted an instrument which states that all his property should go to his niece. The niece named on the will becomes in effect the executor of the will.

A few months after the drafting of the first instrument, the decedent had allegedly turned over a deed of one of his real properties to another party other than his niece by marriage. However on the same day, the decedent drafted an instrument and identified it as his last will and testament. According to that instrument, it would revoke or reverse all wills drafted prior to the recent one. This includes the first draft that named his niece the sole executor of his estate.

Published on: February 15, 2012

Court Rules on Joint Wills

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple executed a Joint Will that will make whoever is the survivor among them as the one to be given the entire property whether own individually or several and be the executor of the irrevocable Joint Will. The Joint Will further provided that whatever remained after the death of the survivor would be distributed to a trust, with equal shares of the trust to be allocated among their grandchildren and one of their children, their daughter. The Joint Will’s terms state that it is forever binding, and may be revoked or modified only by a writing subscribed by both parties and executed with the formality of a Will.

Approximately 8 years after the execution of the Joint Will and after approximately 50 years of marriage, the couple was divorced by judgment dated April 6, 2001. Several months before, apparently in anticipation of the divorce, the couple reaffirmed the Joint Will by executing a Marital Settlement Agreement, the terms of which were incorporated into the divorce judgment. The agreement stated, in pertinent part, that neither party would attempt to revoke the Joint Will, and provided quit claim deeds granting sole title of their condominium to the husband and sole title of their other condominium to the Wife. No further action was taken by either the Wife or the husband regarding the Joint Will.

In 2006, the Wife established her 2006 Irrevocable Trust, the body of which was her condominium. The Wife and her son-in-law were named as the trustees.

Published on: February 10, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

The matter of Max Zurkow’s estate, his daughter had filed a motion for the court to wait on admission of a decision regarding the probate of the last will and testament. She also asked for a time extension to file objections and time to be able to examine the proponent and for an interpretation of the effect of the terrorem clause or no-contest clause that is included in the will.

On the return day of the hearing for the original matter, the daughter showed and the proponent was directed to change the petition because the adoptive daughter of Mr. Zurkow’s predeceased son was not mentioned. Another data that a New York Probate Lawyer obtained was the daughter was not served with the supplemental citation and is claiming she only received a day’s notice that a decree on the admission of the will to probate is going to be presented to the court. The daughter got an immediate order to show cause to wait in making a decision on the decree.

The daughter had checked witnesses who are verifying the proposed will and now wants to examine the proponent of the will. Her allegation was that the son of the testator, who is also an attorney at law, acted as the decedent’s attorney, and the will being executed in his office. Further, she is claiming that the provisions of the will were altered to assign other benefits to the proponent and his family at her expense. A Queens Estate Lawyer cited that the daughter was as well saying that her father was 80 years old at the execution of the will and was relying on other for his physical needs.

Published on: February 9, 2012

Court Rules on Use of Emmy Trademark

by Stephen Bilkis

The very popular Emmy is a trademark shared National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. Before, these two entities were on under Television Academy of Arts & Sciences, this was in 1946. In the 1950’s they separated because of differences. New York Probate Lawyers say that around the 1977, the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS) and Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (ATAS) entered in a settlement agreement to resolve differences in each group’s right with the use of the Emmy trademark and the related litigation.

NATAS got among other things the exclusive right to conduct one annual award and show per year for national daytime programming (TV shows from 2:00 am to 6:00 pm), national sports programming, national news and documentary programming. ATAS got the exclusive right for the award for night time TV shows (TV shows from 6:00 pm to 2:00 am). The agreement also provides that they will need each other’s consent before creating any new national awards, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. A Manhattan Probate Lawyer found out that the agreement is if the other party feels that the consent was reasonably withheld, then they can resort to an intercession.

NATAS announced that they would be starting to award new Emmys to recognize “new media”. The announcement was made November 2005. The “new media” included Broadband video programming broadcasted over the internet. ATAS was not asked for their consent before NATAS announced the new awards. They as well announced that they will be awarding Emmys in Drama, Comedy, Children’s and Variety for Daytime Broadband. Part of the revelation was a “My Space/ My Emmy” contest, which will be for advanced media awards like video games and other technologies. NATAS had denoted that it will be awarding all entertainment programming on broadband media regardless of the time it was distributed. The awards were scheduled to be given away in June.

Published on: February 7, 2012

Public Assisstance Recipients File Claim Against the State

by Stephen Bilkis

The public assistance recipients who had been classified as employable with limitations had a filed an instant law suit against the City administration and the State. The people were classified as such because of the medical problems that they have. Their allegation was that the City administration often puts them in jobs that are not compatible with their disabilities. The plaintiffs who have been assigned to the Work Experience Program (WEP) state that aside from the incompatible jobs, the State has failed to supervise the program under the Social Services law.

New York Probate Lawyers found out that the court has found that the plaintiffs had raised a serious fairness issue and could be entitled to a Writ of Mandamus that requires a government agency to do something that they should by law. It can also be a writ of prohibition, which will prohibit a government agency, even a judge, from doing something that they should not. Or it can also be a Mandamus Review, where a decision of a public agency is reversed.

According to the social services law, in exchange for welfare benefits, the aid recipients need to perform WEP assignments, unless the recipients are exempted due to physical or mental disabilities. The city’s medical contractor determines if they are E-I or employable, E-II or employable with limitations, E-III or temporarily disabled, or E-IV which is permanently disabled, according to a Manhattan Probate Lawyer said. People classified as E-II should still work but will be assigned jobs compatible with their disability.

Published on: February 4, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

A proponent of the will of Lina G. Shapiro, petitioned the court at the foot a probate decree to charge the person objecting to the will personally. The probate decree allows this application to be made after the decree has been final.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that when a person files an objection to a last will and testament in good faith and with reasonable grounds, he is entitled to have his protest investigated without him bearing the cost. There was a previous case whereby the Appellate Court reversed a decision of a surrogate court for an objectant to be charged personally because there was some evidence that supported his objection to the lack of testamentary capacity and to negative bad faith. This was in the Coddington will.

Good faith is mainly reliant on whether there is a considerable basis for a will contest. The court cited some examples, like with the Kurowski’s will, where the court charge the cost of the contest personally to the objectant because she had a sworn data that validates the will she is contesting. The Roger’s estate was mentioned because the court assigned the cost to the person who contested because there was no evidence to support his claim. This is not the sole basis for imposing the cost to an unsuccessful contestant.

Published on: February 3, 2012

Court Rules on a Case Against the Government

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiffs filed a motion against New York State Department of Taxation and Finance for their Statewide Offset Program. A New York Probate Lawyer says that the plaintiffs are taxpayers who are saying that in allowing the offsets, the defendants have violated their rights to notice under the due process and their right to oppose the debts where they offset the refunds. They allege that the program allows the offsetting of their income tax refund to any debt owed by the taxpayer to the New York State Office of Temporary Disability Assistance (OTDA). The plaintiffs are asking for relief and a class certification.

The Court in determining the granting of the motion of the plaintiff’s for class certification determined that issues and facts that are common to the wished-for class outweighs the concerns that are specific to the individual class members. Queens Probate Lawyers mentioned that the court found the question of the violation of OTDA to the due-process clauses of the Constitutions of the United States and New York by certifying debts to DTF without giving plaintiffs’ adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to contest the underlying debts is common to all the members of the proposed class.

The general position of the defendant is that the plaintiffs would not be entitled to recover any damages. They would not be compensated for the government’s violation of their due-process rights if the violation is not the reason for the plaintiff’s losses. The plaintiffs were not able to show evidence of the loss that they are claiming to have incurred because of not having the opportunity t contest the main debt. The court agrees with the defendant’s position on the compensation not being granted if the loss is not a direct result of the violation. The plaintiffs though, ask for the offsets plus interest. A Nassau County Estate Lawyer stated that the opposition indicates that if the opportunity to contest the debt is granted, each plaintiff will have to prove his or her individual case.

Published on: February 1, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

In the matter of Mary Cairo’s will, a question has been raised whether Joseph L. Cairo her grandson has the right to raise a dispute against the terms for the distribution of the will. The decedent named three different charities as the beneficiary of the remaining part of her estate. This is after her sister, Elizabeth Jennings, gets her cooperative house and all its furnishings, including personal property. In the will, according to a New York Probate Lawyer, she says that if her sister dies before her then her share will also be divided equally between the three charities. The sixth article of the will specifically said “I make no bequest to my grandson, Joseph L. Cairo, and I make no bequests to my daughters-in-law, Antoinette Cairo and Audrey Cario, for good and sufficient reason.”

That in the interpretation of a will, the first rule that the court follows is to determine the actual intention of the decedent. The second rule is to establish such an intent from will as a whole and not just part. The will undisputedly show that Mary Cairo wanted to leave the bulk of her estate to charity. Not only with the bequest but even with the provision that if her sister predeceased her, the bequest to her sister will go to the charities. To make it clear, she even named Joseph L. Cairo and others in her will and stated she is not giving them anything.

This was the basis for Joseph L. Cairo’s argument that he has the right to contest the bequest to charity. He says that since he was specifically mentioned then he has the right. Manhattan Probate Lawyers said that by law there are qualifications that must be met to determine a person’s right to contest a bequest to charity. The first is if the gift is more than one-half of the residuary estate. It can only be objected to by people who stand to benefit from a successful contest. This is where the intent of the decedent’s intention comes in. In her will, she showed that she did not want Joseph Cairo to have any part of her will. She wanted her estate to go to her sister and charity. The courts declaring that if they allow Joseph Cairo to contest, then it will be like saying it is possible for him to get something from the estate which is not what Mary Cairo wanted. IT is the court’s decision that Joseph Cairo does not have standing to contest the will as to the disposition to charity. He is also charged $10 personally.

Published on: January 30, 2012

Court Rules on a Will Contest Matter

by Stephen Bilkis

Charles J. Tate, acting as the administrator of the estate of Nicholas C. Tate filed a case for gross negligence, malpractice, non-feasance, misfeasance, malfeasance and breach of fiduciary relationship against John J. McQuade as the guardian ad litem, or the court-appointed guardian of Nicholas’ interest with his son’s will. He is seeking money damages for money and also for punitive damages.

After Nicholas’ son died in March 31, 1971, the court-appointed Mr. McQuade as his guardian because of a disability and Mr. Tate was 90 years old at that time. As the administrator, Mr. Tate says that Mr. McQuade to file a will contest for excessive gift to charity. Whereby if successful would have increased Nicholas’ share in his son’s estate. The son left some personal property to his mother and the rest of the estate to the University of Detroit for educational purposes. This was dated and verified in September 16, 1971. A New York Probate Lawyer said that the mother filed her objections to this will through her own counsel as an excessive gift.

The mother died while the probate for the son’s will was still on-going. Before she died, she had set up a trust for Nicholas her husband, and the rest was to be given to Mr. McQuade as the guardian ad litem. He was also named as the executor of the mother’s will. Though a lawyer, Mr. McQuade was not the one who drafted the mother’s will.