New York City

Published on: May 31, 2013

Petitioners Look for Power to Evict Tenants from Property

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 30 December 2006, the decedent died a resident of Nassau County leaving a last will and testament dated 13 July 2006. On 19 March 2007, the will was admitted to probate and letters issued to A and B as co-executors and co-trustees. After making some specific bequests, the decedent left her residuary estate to her four daughters, A, B, C, and D, in equal shares; and placed C’s share in a Supplemental Needs Trust under her name created pursuant to Article Fourth of the will. Under the will, the trustees were given discretion in distributing income and principal to C; that at C’s death, the remainder of the trust, if any, will pass to C’s son, CC; and D is the named successor fiduciary. The estate contains approximately $125,000.00 in personal property and three homes, which are valued in the aggregate at $1,285,000.00.

Thereafter, a New York Probate Lawyer said five miscellaneous proceedings were filed with the court in connection with the estate administration and that of the trust. On 10 December 2008, some of the issues raised were resolved in a stipulation of partial settlement entered into by all the interested parties, viz: that A and B, as co-trustees of the supplemental needs trust, would enter into a contract for the purchase of property-two which C and CC agreed to use as their long-term primary residence; that C and CC, who were residing in decedent’s real property, property-one, would vacate that property and move to property-two; and that the fiduciaries are obliged to put property-one up for sale within 90 days after respondents move out. Pursuant to the agreement, the co-executors purchased property-two and made it available to respondents as of 16 March 2009. Nonetheless, respondents refused to move out of property-one, and the agreement does not specify a date by which they are required to do so.

Published on: May 30, 2013

Petitioners Seek to Revoke Probate Petition

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 26 October 2000, a decedent died with a Last Will and Testament dated 23 March 1995. Under the will, the decedent left her estate to her two sisters, A and B, or the survivor; named A as executor and B as successor. A predeceased the decedent without issue, thus, the entire estate passed to B.

Sometime in 2005, B petitioned for the appointment of a guardian of her property. The court, finding that B had a history of poor judgment with regard to her real and personal property management, appointed the petitioners, X, a niece, and Y, Esq., as guardians of B’s property. Consequently, in May of 2007, the judge authorized petitioners to petition to probate the 1995 will. By this time, the original could not be located and the petitioners petitioned to probate a copy of the 1995 will as a lost will. The affidavit of X stated that she located the copy among the decedent’s important papers after her death; that while the decedent must have had the original will, her house had been sold and the purchaser threw away all of her papers. The affirmation of Y also stated that after the decedent’s death, her home was taken over by a former handyman of B, who threw away all of the decedent’s papers. Allegedly, the instrument was prepared by an attorney, who supervised its execution and was a subscribing witness, and has filed an affirmation of due execution.

Published on: January 24, 2013

Petitioner Questions Validity of Will

by Stephen Bilkis

In a will contest probate proceeding, the appellant woman appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court which as granted the motion of the petitioner, Public Administrator of Kings County, for summary judgment dismissing her objections to admit the deceased person’s will dated September 30, 1977, admitted the will to for validation and determined that the will was validly executed. The court ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable personally by the appellant.

The last will and testament purporting to be the will of the deceased man was executed on September 30, 1977, under the supervision of an attorney. New York Probate Lawyers said the will contains a confirmation clause and was subscribed by witnesses whose signatures were notarized. The will devised certain real property located in Brooklyn to one of the deceased man’s three daughters. The man died on November 30, 1977, and his will was filed with the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, in April 1978. The man died without a valid will in 2000, and the Public Administrator of Kings County was appointed to oversee her estate.

In May 2003, a photocopied document was submitted to the Probate Department of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, purporting to be the will of the deceased man. The 2003 instrument provided that the real property was to be divided equally among the deceased man’s three daughters.

Published on: December 22, 2012

Both a Will and Advanced Health Care Directive are Important in Estate Planning

by Stephen Bilkis

Facing your mortality is not a pleasant task. However, it is important to discuss an estate plan with a NY estate attorney in order to make sure that your family and loved ones are taken care of should you pass away. A last will and testament is one of the most important documents that will be in an estate plan. Another document that should be considered is an Advanced Health Care Directive.

An Advanced Health Care Directive is a document that should be created as soon as possible. This document should be in place long before they would be needed. An estate lawyer will inform you how important it is to have this type of document in place. The Advanced Health Care Directive describes your wishes involving your health care should you become incapacitated and unable to make these decisions for yourself. This document will include what your wishes are in regard to life support, medications, and which life sustaining measures should be taken in regard to your health care needs.

A New York Probate Lawyer said a tragedy may occur at any time. This is why the Advanced Health Care Directive is so important to discuss with your estate lawyer. If there are no written instructions provided by you about your care all of your health care decisions will be made by either the doctors or your loved ones. This can be a difficult burden for your loved ones to face, especially when they are already dealing with the tragedy.

Published on: December 17, 2012

Court Determines the First and Final Account for the Administrator

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 22 February 2004, a resident of Hicksville died with a will dated 6 November 2002, months after a guardian was appointed on her behalf under Mental Health Law Article 81. The decedent left all of her property, other than a $15,000.00 bequest to a corporation, to “A”, to the exclusion of her family members. The will named “X” as executor and after he offered the will for probate it was revealed that he had a felony record, making him ineligible to serve as a fiduciary. Thus, on 2 May 2005, “X” renounced his appointment. The nominated successor to the named executor had previously renounced her appointment as well.

On 4 May 2005, “A” petitioned the court for letters of administration, for estate administration (estate litigation). However, “A” also had a felony record and was ineligible to serve. Therefore, on 9 June 2005, the court appointed the Public Administrator of Nassau County as temporary administrator. A New York Probate Lawyer said that the decedent’s distributees appeared and filed objections to the probate of the will, and notices of appearance were filed on behalf of “A”, the New York State Attorney General and the aforementioned corporation. On 22 November 2005, all of the interested parties entered into a stipulation of settlement. On 1 February 2006, the will, as reformed and restated by the settlement agreement, was admitted to probate, and full letters of administration, were issued to the Public Administrator. Under the terms of the stipulation, articles second and fifth of decedent’s will were reformed so that three of the decedent’s distributes will share in 2/3 of the decedent’s real property and her residuary estate; the remaining 1/3 will pass to “A”; that the decedent’s real property will pass to these parties in kind, so as not to be subject to a commission, and that the property would be sold and the proceeds held in an attorney’s escrow account; and that before any distributions are made to the interested parties from the escrow account, the sales proceeds will be used to pay the bequest to the aforesaid corporations, the commission of the Public Administrator, and all debts, fees and estate administration expenses of the estate.

Published on: December 16, 2012

Co-Executors File Motion for Eviction in Estate Litigation

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 30 December 2006, the decedent died a resident of Nassau County leaving a last will and testament dated 13 July 2006. On 19 March 2007, the will was admitted to probate and letters issued to A and B as co-executors and co-trustees. After making some specific bequests, the decedent left her residuary estate to her four daughters, A, B, C, and D, in equal shares; and placed C’s share in a Supplemental Needs Trust under her name created pursuant to Article Fourth of the will. Under the will, the trustees were given discretion in distributing income and principal to C; that at C’s death, the remainder of the trust, if any, will pass to C’s son, CC; and D is the named successor fiduciary. The estate contains approximately $125,000.00 in personal property and three homes, which are valued in the aggregate at $1,285,000.00.

Thereafter, five miscellaneous proceedings were filed with the court in connection with the estate administration and that of the trust. On 10 December 2008, some of the issues raised were resolved in a stipulation of partial settlement entered into by all the interested parties, viz: that A and B, as co-trustees of the supplemental needs trust, would enter into a contract for the purchase of property-two which C and CC agreed to use as their long-term primary residence; that C and CC, who were residing in decedent’s real property, property-one, would vacate that property and move to property-two; and that the fiduciaries are obliged to put property-one up for sale within 90 days after respondents move out. Pursuant to the agreement, the co-executors purchased property-two and made it available to respondents as of 16 March 2009.

Published on: December 15, 2012

Petitioners Request Withdrawl of Probate Petition and Move for Issuance of Letters of Administration

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 26 October 2000, a decedent died with a Last Will and Testament dated 23 March 1995. Under the will, the decedent left her estate to her two sisters, A and B, or the survivor; named A as executor and B as successor. A predeceased the decedent without issue, thus, the entire estate passed to B.

Sometime in 2005, B petitioned for the appointment of a guardian of her property. The court, finding that B had a history of poor judgment with regard to her real and personal property management, appointed the petitioners, X, a niece, and Y, Esq., as guardians of B’s property. Consequently, in May of 2007, the judge authorized petitioners to petition to probate the 1995 will. By this time, the original could not be located and the petitioners petitioned to probate a copy of the 1995 will as a lost will. A New York Probate Lawyer said the affidavit of X stated that she located the copy among the decedent’s important papers after her death; that while the decedent must have had the original will, her house had been sold and the purchaser threw away all of her papers. The affirmation of Y also stated that after the decedent’s death, her home was taken over by a former handyman of B, who threw away all of the decedent’s papers. Allegedly, the instrument was prepared by an attorney, who supervised its execution and was a subscribing witness, and has filed an affirmation of due execution. However, the second subscribing witness cannot be located. Thus, the petitioners now move to withdraw their probate petition and ask that the Court issue letters of administration to them (for the purposes of estate administration in an estate litigation). They allege that they are unable to probate the instrument because of the unavailability of the second subscribing witness; and that the distributees have executed agreements waiving their intestate rights so as to mirror the testamentary plan set forth in the subject Last Will & Testament.

Published on: December 14, 2012

Petitioner Alleges Fraud in Will Contest Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 8 January 2006, the decedent died with a will dated 31 December 1993. On 26 April 2007, the decedent’s will was admitted for probate (will contest proceeding) by the court and a decree was thereafter issued, and letters testamentary also issued to the decedent’s wife as executor of the estate of her husband, the decedent (for estate administration as may be determined in estate litigation). At the time of the decedent’s death, he owns a surveying business. On 12 December 2007, an Asset Purchase Agreement was entered into between the decedent’s wife and “A” where “A” agreed to purchase the decedent’s business and all of the assets used in connection with the business. The purchase price was $375,000.00. On 14 December 2007, “A” executed a promissory note in the sum of $200,000.00. The note was guaranteed by a Land Surveyor company, “X”. The terms of the promissory note provide that “A” will pay the sum of $200,000.00, together with interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum, in sixty consecutive monthly payments of principal and interest, each of which, except the last, was required to be in the sum of $3,774.25, the first payment to be made before 14 January 2008. Thereafter, on 14 December 2007, a bill of sale was executed by the decedent’s wife in favor of “A” where she was represented in the sale and in post-closing disputes concerning the sale by lawyer-two. However, no payment was ever made. Thus, on 25 January 2008, by written notice, the wife exercised her option to declare the unpaid principal balance of the promissory note to become immediately due, plus interest. The wife hired lawyer-one, and lawyer-two to act as co-counsel.

In opposition, respondent “A” alleges that the wife breached their agreement by failing to provide adequate documentation to allow him to collect on the accounts receivable; that the wife fraudulently misrepresented the value of the accounts receivable, either by intentionally keeping the necessary documentation from him or by misrepresenting that said documentation ever existed; that the wife fraudulently misrepresented that “A” would be receiving as part of the sale business assets such as cars, documents and files and other significant assets of the business; that, as a result, “A” has refused to make payment on the note. Moreover, “A” argues that lawyer-two should be disqualified from serving as the wife’s co-counsel on the grounds of the advocate-witness rule because he is a material and necessary witness; because he served as the wife’s attorney throughout the negotiation and sale of the business; that lawyer-two has intimate knowledge regarding the assets of the business and what was promised to “A” as part of the sale; that lawyer-two will be deposed and questioned as to the existence of the accounts receivable and his role in furnishing the necessary documents to allow “A” to collect on those accounts; that lawyer-two is a material and necessary witness because he was involved in negotiations, meetings and drafting of documents in connection with the sale. Furthermore, “A” also asks for leave of court to amend his answer to add two affirmative defenses, one alleging mutual mistake concerning the disputed invoices and the value of the accounts receivable and one alleging unilateral mistake by “A” caused by fraudulent conduct on the part of the wife, since the wife’s counsel has declined to stipulate to allow the amendment; that the amendment does not create any prejudice or cause any surprise to the wife; that these defenses arise out of the same set of facts previously set forth in the petition; and that the case is still in the early stages of discovery where no depositions have yet taken place, and the wife will still have the opportunity to seek discovery on these new defenses.

Published on: December 12, 2012

Court Rules on Complex Will Contest Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 2 October 2005, a resident of Sands Point died with a will dated 6 June 1996. He is survived by his wife, his children, A, B and C, and his granddaughter, X, the infant daughter of a predeceased son, D. On 21 September 2006, the will was submitted for probate (will contest proceeding) and letters testamentary issued to the decedent’s wife, the decedent’s daughter, A, and the decedent’s brother. On 23 April 2008, A and the decedent’s brother filed their account, which was subsequently amended and supplemented. Thereafter, a guardian ad litem was appointed by the court to represent the interests of X. The administration and the account reflect ongoing discord between the wife and the decedent’s other fiduciaries, A and the brother, dominated by conflict over the computation of the wife’s elective share. Ultimately, the parties executed a stipulation, receipt, release and refunding agreement which resolves all of the disputed issues other than the legal fee paid from estate assets to an attorney, who provided legal services to A and the brother at the onset of the administration but whom they later replaced. The stipulation provides that for purposes of calculating the wife’s elective share, the gross estate is valued at $2,115,942.00; that the expenses paid to date, plus the amount reimbursable to the wife for administration expenses which she incurred, total $438,817.00. The parties agreed that the fees of their current attorneys and that of the guardian ad litem be fixed by the court.

The Issues of the Case:

Published on: December 6, 2012

Plaintiff Seeks Summary Judgment in Property Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant Neptune Estates, LLC (“Neptune”), owner of 380 Neptune Avenue, Brooklyn,, NY (“Property”), entered a contractor’s agreement with defendant Big Poll Construction, Inc. (“Big Poll”) whereby Big Poll would act as the general contractor on a construction project on the Property (“Project”). In February 2009, plaintiff entered two subcontractor agreements with Big Poll whereby plaintiff agreed to perform the structural steel work, masonry, and concrete slabs on the Project.

A New York Probate Lawyer said that Neptune alleges that on or about February 22, 2009, Neptune removed Big Poll for cause and hired non-party Future City Plus, Inc. (“Future City”) to act as the new general contractor on the Project. A construction contract between Neptune and Future City was executed. On March 15, 2009, plaintiff entered two subcontractor agreements with Future City whereby plaintiff was to be paid $181,000 and $191,000, respectively, for the structural steel and masonry and concrete slabs on the Project. Neptune alleges that Future City subsequently terminated these subcontracts with plaintiff for cause on December 15, 2009.

Long Island Probate Lawyer said that, exactly nine months after Future City entered the contractor agreement with Neptune, plaintiff filed a mechanic’s lien (“January Lien”) against the Property and, pursuant to Lien Law § 9(3), plaintiff identified the person with whom the contract was made as “Big Poll & Son Construction, LLC and Future City Plus, Inc.”. After Neptune moved to discharge the January Lien, Justice Bunyan vacated the January Lien without prejudice in a short form order with the consent of the parties. The order indicated that “a new Mechanic’s Lien may be filed in a timely manner. This is without costs to any party.” On April 1, 2010, plaintiff filed a second mechanic’s lien (“Lien”) and identified the person with whom the contract was made as “Big Poll & Son Construction, LLC. There may be a claim against the successor on the project, Future City Plus, Inc., if this company agreed to assume the obligation of its predecessor.” This is the only substantive change from the January Lien other than the identity of the plaintiff’s attorney and the signatories to the Lien.