Staten Island

Published on: July 15, 2012

Sibling Claims Decedent was a Victim of Undue Influence

by Stephen Bilkis

An 87 year old bachelor died on May 12, 1992. He had an estate that was worth $7,000,000. He left his estate to his sister, his brother and the two children of his brother who died before him. He also named the three children of his sister as his heirs. The sister was the named executor in the bachelor’s will.

She filed a petition for probate but this probate was opposed by the bachelor’s brother and his nephews. During the pendency of the probate proceedings, the sister died and in her own will, she named her son as the executor of her will and the executor of her bachelor brother’s will. The Surrogate Court granted letters testamentary to the nephew of the bachelor.

The crux of the issue in the probate proceedings is the testamentary capacity of the bachelor at the time of the execution of the will and whether or not undue influence was exerted by his sister so that he executed the will which is now being presented for probate.

Published on: July 14, 2012

Jurisdiction Issue Decided

by Stephen Bilkis

A testator was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York but after he got married, he lived with his wife in Florida. Later, the testator and his wife resided in Phoenix, Arizona. While they resided in Phoenix, Arizona, the testator’s wife died. It was around April 2004 that he executor his will in Arizona.

The testator first executed a trust in favor of his grandson. In his will, he left his entire estate to the trust he created. He named his grandson the sole beneficiary of his trust.

A year after he created the trust and executed his will the testator called his sister asking her to come and get him from Phoenix, Arizona because he wanted to go back and live in Brooklyn with her. At that time the testator was ninety-five years old and he had heart disease. He told his sister that he wanted to change his will. So before he boarded the airplane bound for Brooklyn, New York, he and his sister went by the office of a lawyer where he changed the beneficiary of his 2004 will and trust. He gave his sister the principal of the trust, he gave his granddaughter 3/8 of the trust and his grandson 1/8 of the trust. He also named his sister as his health care proxy. After signing the documents in the Arizona lawyer’s office, he insisted on boarding the airplane to New York immediately.

Published on: June 26, 2012

Ex-Wife Files a Claim Against the Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 3 March 1994, a decedent died. He was survived by his ex-wife and their four children. Under the decedent’s will dated 3 August 1988, he left his estate to the daughter (“the daughter”) of one of his sons (“son-one”).

On 3 November 1994, the will was admitted to probate and letters testamentary were issued to the son-one’s wife, the nominated executor.

Published on: June 25, 2012

Court Discusses Whether a No-Contest Clause Only Applies to Heirs

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman executed a will two weeks before she died in September 1992. She left an estate worth $2,000,000. Her will was offered for probate by the executors. During the proceedings, it was discovered that the woman filed with the Surrogate’s Court a prior will dated July 1992. The provisions of the 1992 did not provide for cash gifts to the attorney who drafted the will or to his wife who testified as to the due execution of the will, unlike the September 1992 will.

The charitable foundation contends that if the September 1992 will is found to have not been duly executed or if fraud or undue influence were brought to bear on the testator in the September 1992 will so as to also make bequests to the lawyer and his wife in her will, the residual estate which will be put in trust for the foundation would have been bigger.

The charitable foundation wishes to object to the probate of the September 1992 will but the will also contains a provision that if any of the beneficiaries of the will shall object to the probate of the will, the legacy made for them shall be revoked. A New York Probate Lawyer said this kind of provision is called an “in terrorem” or non-contest clause. It is meant to put the fear of disinheritance in the heart of those who were named beneficiaries in the will so that the estate will not be reduced by having to spend on legal costs.

Published on: June 23, 2012

Decedent’s Son Sues for Specific Performance

by Stephen Bilkis

A man and his male domestic life partner were co-owners of a cooperative apartment in Brooklyn, New York. They also co-owned a house in Southold, New York.

In his last will and testament, the man named his domestic life partner as his executor. He also left to him his share in the proprietary lease of the Brooklyn apartment and shares of stock. The man also gave cash gifts to his nephews amounting to $10,000 each.

The domestic life partner presented his the will for probate. The sons of the testator appeared during the probate proceedings but signed waivers signifying that they were waiving all objections they may have in the will. The will was admitted into probate in 2001 and letters testamentary were given to the testator’s domestic life partner.

Published on: June 1, 2012

Court Discusses Issuing Preliminary Letters Testementary

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 14 December 2005, a decedent died leaving a will dated 13 September 2005 (the “2005 Will”) and a prior will dated 24 January 2003 (the “2003 Will”). The 2003 Will nominates the decedent’s daughter-one as executor and the decedent’s daughter-two as successor executor. The 2005 Will also nominates daughter-one as executor. The decedent was also survived by her other daughter, daughter-three.

Under the 2003 Will, all shares that the decedent had in any companies or corporations is bequeathed to the decedent’s two grandchildren equally and the decedent’s bank accounts to her daughters, daughter-one and daughter-three, equally. The 2003 Will further provides for bequests of tangible personal property. The 2003 Will gives the decedent’s cooperative apartment in equal shares to the two grandchildren. The remainder of the estate is bequeathed in one-third (1/3) shares to each of the decedent’s three daughters.

Published on: May 26, 2012

Court Authenticates Last Will and Testament

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Surrogates Court of Suffolk County. The matter at hand involves the issue of proving the last will and testament of the deceased, Sigrid C. Lockwood as a will of real property and personal property. The case also deals with a petition regarding the ancillary letters testamentary for the same estate.

The question is this case is in regard to the wills left by the decedent, Sigrid C. Lockwood. At the time of her death she was living in Norway. This is where she was cremated. She was a United States citizen at the time. She executed a will in December of 1951 which has been offered for probate to this court. She also executed another will in Norway in April of 1953. This will has been probated in Norway. The executor named in the will is requesting letters ancillary from the court.

Case Background

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 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 6, 2012

Court Hears Case Brought By Third Party Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in this case is Robinson Duran Urena. The defendant and third party plaintiff/respondent in the case is Ciampa Estates, LLC. They are represented by the law offices of Fiorella Rubin & Friedman LLP. His council in the case is Stewart B. Greenspan. The third -party defendant-appellant in the case is Sanita Construction Company, Inc. They are represented by John Bonanno from Weiner, Morgan, Millo & Bonanno, LLC.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division. The judges in the case are Sheri S. Roman, JJ, Ariel E. Belen, Daniel D. Angiolillo, and Reinaldo E. Rivera, J.P.

Appeal