New York City

Published on: October 11, 2012

Court Discusses Cy Pres Doctrine

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

On 15 June 2004, the decedent died testate at the age of 74 years of old, without a spouse or issue. The decedent’s last will and testament dated 21 November 1996 was admitted to probate, a will contest proceeding, by decree dated 29 September 2005. The will named a certain person as the nominated executor (for purposes of estate administration) who predeceased the decedent. Thus, letters testamentary issued to the nominated substitute executor, on 30 September 2005. The attorney who prepared the will filed a disclosure statement executed by the decedent on 21 November 1996, which complied with the statutory requirements as it then existed; filed with the court his affidavit that was sworn to on 6 October 2004 and his affidavit sworn to on 30 October 2004.

Thereafter, the attorney has filed his account as executor for the period from 15 April 2005 to 31 January 2009. The account shows total charges of $951,949.88, total credits of $534,915.54 and a balance on hand of $417,034.34. The petitioner is seeking a decree judicially settling the account, approving legal fees, accounting fees and commissions, relief under the doctrine of cy pres as to two charities named in the will that are no longer in existence and approval to deposit the remaining assets on hand with the New York State Comptroller on behalf of any unknown distributees of the decedent. The Attorney General of New York appeared and filed objections to certain legal fees requested by the petitioner’s firm and to the amount of the executor’s commissions as calculated. A New York Probate Lawyer said the Attorney General supports the petitioner’s requests that the balance of the residuary estate be deposited with the New York State Comptroller and that the court direct that the bequests to the two charities no longer in existence be distributed to charities with substantially similar purposes.

Published on: October 10, 2012

Court Discusses Domestic Relations Law and Family Court Act

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts of the Case:

The estate of decedent-one is the legal entity controlling the assets and obligations of decedent-two. No Last Will and Testament of decedent-two has ever been presented for probate nor read by plaintiffs, if one exists.

Meanwhile, decedent-two was married with wife-one and they had two children, child-one and child-two. Their decree of divorce was issued on 6 January 1997. Together they entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated 19 September 1996 which was incorporated but not merged into the Judgment of Divorce. On or about 11 March 2000, decedent-two married the defendant, wife-two. Thereafter, a New York Probate Lawyer said child-two resided with decedent-one and wife-two in Suffolk County until the decedent’s death on 20 December 2008. Allegedly, sometime in August 2007, child-one was forced out of the residence by wife-two; that at the time of decedent-two’s death, he was suffering from lung cancer, metastatic stage four; and that wife-two administered him a lethal overdose of morphine which hastened his death.

Published on: October 9, 2012

Plaintiff Brings Will Contest Action

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals with the plaintiffs Henry Rogers Benjamin Jr. individually and as the trustee of the trusts under article 13 of the will of Henry Rogers Benjamin, William E. Benjamin II, and William E. Benjamin III, Anne R. and Henry Rogers Barry, Douglas Benjamin, Gregory Benjamin, Theodore Benjamin, Christopher M. Benjamin, Alexandra Benjamin Vose, Beatrice Benjamin, Cynthia Barry Bidwell, and Anne E. Green. The defendants in this case are Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York and Morgan Guarantee Trust Company as the trustee of trusts under paragraphs a and b of article 13 of the will of Henry Rogers Benjamin and the Southampton Hospital Association and Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases.

Case Background

A New York Probate Lawyer said the decedent passed away on the 22nd of February, 1967. He left a will that was admitted for probate on the 13th of March, 1967. In the 13th article of his will the decedent devised and bequeathed half of his residuary estate in trust with the net income payable to his spouse during her lifetime. The trustees were given the discretionary power to invade the marital trust for the benefit of his spouse. He offered guidance to the trustees in the form of directing that his spouse receive a minimum of $1,000,000 per year utilizing the net income augmented by the principal. The spouse was given general power of appointment over the marital trust. If the spouse was to default on her power or exercise the power invalidly, the remaining principal of the marital trust would go to the decedent’s descendants, who are the plaintiffs in this case.

Published on: October 8, 2012

Court Hears Four Guardianship Proceedings

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Second Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The case involves the respondent, Alice A. Amrhein and the appellant Ernest L. Signorelli. In this case the Commissioner of Social Services of the County of Suffolk is challenging the authority of the Surrogate to order her or the Department of Social Services of Suffolk County to conduct investigations including home studies and criminal checks of petitioners in guardianship proceedings that are brought in front of the Surrogate’s Court.

Case Background

The facts of this case involve 4 different guardianship proceedings. The first matter involves the Robinsons, who are the maternal aunt and uncle of a then fifteen year old girl who sought guardianship after the death of the girl’s parents.

Published on: October 6, 2012

Petitioner Claims Will was Not Properly Executed

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Surrogate’s Court of the State of New York located in Nassau County. The case deals with the last will and testament of Zelda Astor. The will is being contested by objectant Regina Astor Zyats who moves for an order of summary judgment and denying the admission of the purported will that is dated the 17th of June, 2005 to probate on the ground that there is lack of due execution of the will. Ms. Zyats also seeks to have the letters testamentary that were issued to Paula Sue Astor – Ferraro revoked. The petitioner, Ms. Ferraro, opposes the motion.

Case Background

The decedent, Zelda Astor, passed away in July of 2005. She left a will that is dated the 17th of June, 2005. The decedent is survived by four children, Jeffrey Howard Astor, Stephen Brent Astor, Regina Astor Zyats, and Paula Sue Astor – Ferraro. In the purported will the decedent makes bequests of case in the amount of $5000 to Regina, $10,000 to Jeffrey, $25,000 to Stephen, $25,000 to her grandson Baron Zyats, $5000 to her granddaughter Rachel Zyats, and $5000 to her former daughter in law, Pamela Astor. A New York Probate Lawyer said the will nominates Paula as the executor of the will. Additionally, in the eighth article of the will the decedent bequeaths her entire residuary estate to Paula.

Published on: October 1, 2012

Court Reviews Alleged Fraudulent Acts by Fiduciaries

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk County. The case involves the will of Madeleine Daltrolff Corya, who is deceased. The case is an accounting proceeding where the co-petitioners, the attorney – draftsman and the Bankers Trust Company have requested that the court fix and determine the fee and disbursements of the attorney’s law firm in the amount of $250,000 and to fix and allow the combined commissions for the total amount of $1,634,230.40. The counsel has requested a hearing be held in respect to this application for fees and disbursements.

Case Background

The decedent passed away in April of 1987 and is survived by a grand nephew. The decedent bequeathed her entire estate, which amounted to approximately $46 million at the time she passed away, to two charitable organizations, the American Cancer Society and Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases of New York. Her attorney, John J. Barrett and the Bankers Trust Company of New York were named as executors of the will.

Published on: September 15, 2012

Court Rules on Estate Pursuant to Suffolk County Tax Act

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is being heard in the Special Term of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. The matter deals with Randolph Cowan versus Rose McVey, et al. This is a proceeding under article 15 of Real Property Law. A judgment has been entered that determined the plaintiff’s absolute ownership in the subject premises. The State of New York has moved for the judgment to be vacated, for the right to intervene, and for other relief as well.

Case Background

A New York Probate Lawyer said the complaint in this action shows that on the 17th of November, 1958, the plaintiff obtained an interest in a premises located in this county. The purchase of the premises was made at a tax sale. ON the 16th of November, 1961, the title was vesting in the State of New York as a result of appropriation. A deed was delivered to the plaintiff by the County Treasurer of Suffolk County on the 28th of November, 1961.

Published on: September 13, 2012

Court Rules on Full Faith and Credit Act of the Constitution

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with Howard E. Bennett, who is also known as Ward Bennett and is deceased. The appellant in the case is David White. Robert Middleton, et al is the respondents in this matter. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and Second Judicial Department.

A New York Family Lawyer said the the petitioner, David White is appealing an order that was made in the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk County made on the 21st of December, 2009 that granted the motion of Andrew Sabin for leave to intervene in the proceeding and revoked his ancillary letters testamentary and an order from the same court that was made on the 24th of June, 2010 upon renewal and re-argument of the case adhered to the original determination made in the December 21st decision.

Case Background

Published on: September 12, 2012

Public Administrator Seeking Approval for Accounting

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with the account of proceedings of Eric P. Milgrim, the Public Administrator for Nassau County as the administrator of the estate of Nora Mabry who is deceased. The Surrogates Court of the State of New York in the county of Nassau is hearing this case.

Case Background

A New York Probate Lawyer said presented to the court are the first and the final account of the Public Administrator for the estate of Nora Mabry. Nora Mabry died intestate as a resident of Uniondale, on the 26th of December, 1998. The decedent left a will that was dated the 15th of June, 1979. In the will the decedent bequeathed her entire residuary estate to her nephew, Wyman Scott who died after the decedent. The Public Administrator was appointed as the temporary administrator for the estate on the 14th of April, 2005. The will of the decedent was admitted for probate by a decree from this court dated the 11th of May, 2010. Letters of administration were issued to the Public Administrator at this time.

Published on: September 11, 2012

Court Discusses Final Accounting of Estate

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with the accounting done by Daniel D’Amico as the Executor of the estate of Andrew Peter D’Amico, deceased. The case is being heard in the Surrogates Court of the State of New York located in the county of Nassau.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the accounting done by Daniel D’Amico as the executor of the estate of Andrew Peter D’Amico has been submitted to the court for review. The executor is seeking approval of his final accounting regarding the estate. This includes the computation and payment of his commissions as the executor of the estate and the commissions of Andrew D’Amico as trustee. In addition, the executor seeks approval of the allowance of fees and expenses for the attorney and accountant and approval to repay a loan made by Gloria Maria D’Amico.

Case Background