Bronx

Published on: May 28, 2016

Petitioner Claims Undue Influence in Will Contest

by Stephen Bilkis

In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated April 11, 1986, as, upon a ruling made after close of all the evidence at a jury trial dismissing all her objections as a matter of law, dismissed her third objection alleging that the will was procured by the undue influence of the petitioner, admitted the will to probate and awarded letters testamentary to the petitioner.

The testimony at the trial established that the decedent had executed a will in 1977 which would have distributed her estate equally to her two sisters, who were then living, and the proponent of the will in question, the surviving son of a third sister. In the event either of the decedent’s two sisters predeceased her, their shares would go to the objectant, the daughter of one of those sisters. In December 1977 the decedent fractured a hip bone and the proponent of the will came to her aid and assisted her in getting to the hospital. A few days after the decedent’s accident, the proponent of the will ended his employment as a tenured college professor and devoted his energies to assisting his aunt in her affairs, primarily acting as her financial advisor. Specifically, he executed a power of attorney in favor of him; the decedent’s securities were removed from her safe deposit box by proponent of the will and he transferred them to a box in his name; the bank accounts were transferred by the proponent of the will into an account in the joint names of the decedent and the proponent of the will, and he signed the decedent’s name on the account application at her request; he arranged for the dividend checks from the decedent’s securities to be deposited directly into another joint account which was opened in a similar fashion; and the bank statements from the joint accounts were sent to the proponent of the wills home although the proxy materials were sent to her. In addition, the proponent of the will assisted the decedent in finding various nursing homes wherein she resided after her 1977 accident and until her death in 1984.

In 1981, the proponent of the will drafted and typed a new will for the decedent which named the proponent of the will as the sole beneficiary and executor of her estate. Although by that time the two sisters had died, no provision was made in the new will for the objectant.

Published on: July 8, 2015

Plaintiff Brings an Action to Recover Damages

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and for wrongful death, the defendant X. Co. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 16, 1985, as, inter alia, denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint as against it. This Court now ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The decedent Mr. A.B initially commenced this action for personal injuries against the defendant X. Co., claiming that he was injured by the inhalation of asbestos. Special Term granted the motion of the decedent’s daughter, Ms. M, to be substituted as the plaintiff in place and stead of her father in her capacity as the executrix of his estate and to amend the original complaint to include a cause of action for her father’s alleged wrongful death. Special Term denied Standard’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint as against it, rejecting Standard’s argument that the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County did not have the power to declare Ms. M the executrix of her father’s estate and probate his will since he was a domiciliary of Florida at the time of his death.

It is explained pursuant to SCPA 204, when the jurisdiction of a court is called into question in a collateral proceeding, the jurisdiction is presumptively, and in the absence of fraud or collusion, conclusively established by an allegation of the jursidictional facts contained in a verified pleading. Contrary to Standard’s assertion, there were no fraudulent statements in the petition. While the petition alleged that the decedent was a domiciliary of Kings County, it also indicated that decedent had died in a Florida nursing home. In addition, annexed to the petition were papers intended to inform the Surrogate of the decedent’s connection with Florida. Thus, the Surrogate was supplied with all of the relevant facts, and in the absence of fraud, the defendant has no standing in a collateral proceeding to have the determination overturned, this was further illustrated in the case of Stolz v. New York (Cent. R.R. Co., 7 N.Y.2d 269, 196 N.Y.S.2d 969, 164 N.E.2d 849).

Published on: February 22, 2014

Court Decides Settlement of Intermediate Account of the Executors

by Stephen Bilkis

In this proceeding for the settlement of the intermediate account of the executors the petition prays construction of provisions of the will which have created nine separate and distinct questions involving its interpretation.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that in Paragraph Third of her will, the testatrix made twenty-seven gifts to individuals and charitable institutions. Each of the bequests was described as consisting of ‘a sum equivalent to of my estate.’

‘It is conceded that as a general rule, absent some provision to the contrary, debts and administration expenses are deducted in computing the value of an estate when a fraction thereof has been bequeathed.

Published on: February 11, 2014

Court Looks at Validity of Will Pursuant to Sec. 22a of Decedent Estate Law

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Probate Lawyer said that, the decedent, a resident of this county, died in Great Barrington, Massachusetts on July 27, 1959. An instrument executed by her in Massachusetts has been submitted for probate. The facts regarding its execution are undisputed. The instrument was written, upon instructions of the decedent, by a friend of forty years standing and signed by the decedent on April 13, 1959 but it was not witnessed. Subsequently and on July 20, 1959 certain additions were written in by another person at the request of the decedent. These consist of a legacy of $1,000 and a direction that all expenses are paid first. These additions appear below the signature of the decedent. On the same day three persons signed as witnesses after the decedent had acknowledged her signature and declared the paper to be her will. Their signatures appear below the aforementioned additions.

A New York Will Lawyer said that, it is alleged in the petition that decedent’s estate consists solely of personal property and that she left no living relatives. The special guardian for unknown distributees has filed objections to the probate of the instrument upon the ground that it was not signed by the decedent at the end thereof. The proponent has moved to strike out the objections and to admit the propounded instrument to probate.

A New York Will Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether the estate of the decedent should be admitted to probate.

Published on: October 24, 2011

E. Louise Grupp died in September 25, 1992.

by Stephen Bilkis

With an Estate amounting to almost two million dollars, E. Louise Grupp died in September 25, 1992. The will that was given for probate was only dated two weeks before Mr. Grupp died. The will was dated September 11, 1992. The executors who wear named in the will were Joan E. Maloney, Esq., and Eleanor G. Dunn. There was an older will filed with the court that was dated July 9, 1992. Interested parties had examined the witnesses to the will.

The will dated September 11, 1992 sets up the $300,000 trust for Ms. Nitterauer and places another $150,000 in trust for her sons. Aside from that she gets personal effects and the testator’s house. From what a New York Estate Lawyer gathered, the remaining part of the estate of the deceased goes to the Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company as trustee for the Buffalo Foundation to be held as a perpetual charitable fund in memory of Mrs. Grupp and her late husband. Nine charities are assigned as income beneficiaries of fund assets in various percentages totaling 95% of net income, with the recipients of the remaining 5% to be selected by the Foundation. If the foundation fails to qualify as a charity or any of the other named organizations then the trustee will select from qualifying charities.

A terrorem clause was also in this will. That if anyone contests the probate or any part of the will, their interest will be forfeited, and it will be treated like that person died before the testator.

Published on: April 8, 2011

Joseph Alexander died November 23, 1975, leaving his adopted son, Ronald Alexander

by Stephen Bilkis

Joseph Alexander died November 23, 1975, leaving his adopted son, Ronald Alexander. After the probate of his will, his son filed a petition contesting the amount given to charities as in excess percentage amount allowed by law. Executors were placed to check if the claim was valid, and the courts were asked to determine the effect of the ‘no contest’ clause of the will.

In his will, he gave all his properties, a flat in Switzerland and $25,000 per year to his son. In the event that his son dies before the end of the trust then the remaining amount will be put back to his estate.

Joseph Alexander also included in the will that in his lifetime, he had provided his son loans. He had paid indebtedness acquired by his son from other people. He expressly states in his last will and testament, from what a New York Will Contest Lawyer gathered, that if his son directly or indirectly oppose the probate of his will, Ronald Alexander will not getting any part of his estate and will only get $1 per annum.