ESTATE OF SEYMOUR REICH, Deceased (16-2996) — At the call of the January 30, 2018 calendar, the court determined the motion of Charles Reich, respondent in a probate proceeding in the estate of Seymour Reich, for an order: (1) directing petitioner Elizabeth Brimberg to appear for an additional half-day of SCPA 1404 examination and (2) permitting respondent to depose Noemi Tapia without triggering operation of the in terrorem clause in Article SEVENTH of the instrument offered for probate (see EPTL 3-3.5 [b] [3] [D]).The court granted the first prong of the requested relief but limited the duration of the deposition of petitioner to three hours and the scope of the deposition to two topics: (A) expenditures made by decedent during the last four months of his life in connection with real property, located at 48 and 49 Dune Road, in Quogue, that decedent had transferred to petitioner, but only to the extent such expenditures reflect a pattern of undue influence, and (B) petitioner’s involvement with decedent’s affairs, from February 3, 2016 (following decedent’s meeting on that date with the attorney-drafter of the propounded instrument) until July 22, 2016 (decedent’s date of death).The court also granted the second prong of the requested relief. Based on “special circumstances” alleged by movant, the court determined that Noemi Tapia potentially could “provide information with respect to the validity” of the instrument offered for probate which “is of substantial importance or relevance” to movant’s decision to object or not to object to probate of the February 8, 2016 instrument (SCPA 1404 [4]; EPTL 3-3.5 [b] [3] [D]). Movant alleged that decedent employed Tapia as a manager, that decedent, whose vision was impaired, relied on Tapia, and that Tapia attended the February 3, 2016 meeting with decedent and the attorney-drafter.This decision, together with a transcript of the January 30, 2018 proceedings, constitutes the order of the court.Clerk to notify.Dated: February 21, 2018ESTATE OF ELLEN LINKER MARTIN, plf, v. JONI LINKER HUFNAGEL, def (99-5040/A);ESTATE OF FREDERICK ROBERT LINKER, Deceased (99-5040/B);ESTATE OF FREDERICK ROBERT LINKER, Deceased (99-5040/C) — At the call of the January 26, 2018 calendar, the court granted the motion of Lewis A. Bartell, Esq., for leave to withdraw as counsel for Ellen Linker Martin — plaintiff in the action against Joni Linker Hufnagel, individually and as fiduciary, transferred from the Nassau County Supreme Court; petitioner in the SCPA 2105 proceeding; and objectant in the proceeding to settle the account of Joni Linker Hufnagel as administrator c.t.a — in the estate of Frederick Robert Linker.Ellen Linker Martin has elected to proceed pro se. Movant is directed to deliver Ellen Linker Martin’s files to her by March 9, 2018.This decision, together with a transcript of the January 26, 2018 proceedings, constitutes the order of the court.Clerk to notify.Dated: February 21, 2018ESTATE OF ROBERT A. KOEPPEL, Deceased (96-4098/C) — In this proceeding seeking to hold Respondent William W. Koeppel in contempt, the court granted Respondent’s application to bifurcate the civil and criminal contempt aspects of the proceeding and to try each aspect separately. After an evidentiary hearing on the criminal contempt aspect of this proceeding, conducted over twelve days, the court renders its verdict as follows.Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 750 (A) (3), this court has the power to punish for criminal contempt any person guilty of wilfully disobeying its lawful mandates. According to the Court of Appeals, in order to sustain a finding of criminal contempt based on an alleged violation of a court order or mandate it is necessary to establish three elements: first, there has to be a showing that a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect; second, it must appear with reasonable certainty that the order has been disobeyed; and third, the party charged must have had knowledge of the court’s order, although it is not necessary to prove that the order was served on the respondent (Dep’t of Envtl Prot. of City of New York v Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 NY2d 233, 240 [1987]; see also Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583 [1983]). After carefully considering the evidence presented during the trial, as well as the arguments made by both sides in their post-trial submissions, the court finds that Petitioners have sustained their burden to prove that Respondent is guilty of criminal contempt. In particular, the court finds that Petitioners established each of the above-stated elements beyond a reasonable doubt.First, the court finds that Petitioners established beyond a reasonable doubt that the “Nunc Pro Tunc Corrected Order” dated October 5, 2011, and the Stipulation and Order “so ordered” by the court on December 14, 2012, were lawful mandates of this court issued in a proceeding in the estate of decedent Robert A. Koeppel, over which this court had jurisdiction. The court finds that the October 5, 2011 Order and the December 14, 2012 “so ordered” Stipulation and Order unequivocally mandated Respondent to make monthly payments of $20,000 to Petitioners.Second, the court finds that Petitioners established beyond a reasonable doubt that Respondent did not make any of the mandated $20,000 payments to Petitioners, even though he had the financial ability to make those payments.Finally, the court finds that Petitioners established beyond a reasonable doubt that Respondent had knowledge of each of these two orders. Petitioners proved that the October 5, 2011 Order was issued by this court on the basis of a stipulation entered into by counsel for Respondent and Petitioners which stipulation asked the court to issue an order correcting a mistake on a prior order issued on December 29, 2009. The October 5, 2011 Order was thus issued at the request of and with the consent of Respondent and his counsel. With respect to the December 14, 2012 “so ordered” Stipulation and Order, Petitioners provided ample proof that Respondent was aware of its mandates at the time that it was issued, including the testimony of the lawyer then representing Respondent who executed the stipulation.Based on the foregoing, the court finds Respondent William W. Koeppel guilty of Criminal Contempt in violation of Judiciary Law § 750 (A) (3). Having afforded the parties an opportunity to be heard on the record on February 20, 2018, as to the punishment to be imposed on Respondent pursuant to Judiciary Law § 751, the court fixes the punishment for said contempt as imprisonment in a correctional institution or jail of the New York City Department of Corrections for a period of 10 days for each order of the court that was violated by the Respondent, for a total of 20 days of imprisonment, as well as a fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each order of the court that was violated by the Respondent, for a total of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). This fine is to be paid no later than March 19, 2018, to the Surrogate’s Court of the State of New York, New York County.This decision constitutes the order of the court.Dated: February 20, 2018
