ESTATE OF ELISA DELGADO, Deceased (11/1068/B) — This is a proceeding for the judicial settlement of the account of the administrator of this estate. The Guardian ad Litem appointed on behalf of a necessary party under a disability, has filed his report wherein he consents to the judicial settlement of the administrator’s account. The fee of the Guardian ad Litem is fixed in the amount of $2,550.00 and shall be paid as an administration expense within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision.Jurisdiction over all other necessary parties has been obtained and no objections to any of the relief requested, including approval of attorney fees and fiduciary commissions, has been filed.Inasmuch as the account of proceedings covered an accounting period up to February 8, 2017, the fiduciary is directed to submit, upon notice of settlement to the Guardian ad Litem and any other attorney who appeared in the matter, a final accounting decree with an affidavit bringing his account up to date.Proceed accordingly.Dated: December 19, 2017ESTATE OF AEKI HOLCK, Deceased (13/953/A) — The limited administrator C.T.A. of this estate has petitioned to modify the limitations contained in the Limited Letters of Administration C.T.A. issued by this Court on January 17, 2014, so as to enable him to compromise a personal injury cause of action on behalf of the decedent.Jurisdiction has been obtained over all necessary parties, including the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.Upon review of all the papers submitted, the application to modify the limitations and to settle the wrongful death/personal injury claim in the amount of $600,000.00 is approved. All proceeds are allocated to the cause of action for personal injury.Attorney fees, inclusive of disbursements, are fixed and allowed in the total amount of $171,485.80 to Ameduri, Galante & Friscia, Esq. Healthcare Partners IPA shall be paid $4,738.00 as full payment of their claim. John Holck shall be paid $3,561.00 as reimbursement for payment of decedent’s funeral expenses.The net balance in the amount of $420,215.20 shall be paid to Robert Holck, as Administrator C.T.A., to be distributed in accordance with the Last Will and Testament of the decedent.Incidental relief prayed for is granted.Submit Decree upon Notice of Settlement.Dated: November 13, 2017ESTATE OF JONATHAN LATTA, A/K/A JONATHAN O. LATTA, Deceased (16/318/B) — In this contested estate proceeding, all outstanding issues have been resolved pursuant to the terms of a written Stipulation of Settlement “so ordered” by this Court.The Guardians ad Litem, appointed on behalf of infant interested parties, have filed their reports wherein they recommend the settlement subject to the provisions and recommendations as contained within their reports. The fees of the Guardians ad Litem are fixed as indicated in the file and shall be paid within sixty (60) days of the date of this decision.Upon review of all the documents, the Court hereby grants the EPTL 5-1.1-A application pursuant to the terms and conditions of the “so ordered” stipulation and the recommendations as contained within the reports of the Guardians ad Litem.Submit a decree upon Notice of Settlement to all interested parties, counsel, and Guardians ad Litem incorporating the terms of the stipulation and the recomendations as contained within the reports of the Guardians ad Litem.Dated: December 12, 2017ESTATE OF JOSEPH S. MUSCHELLO, A/K/A JOSEPH MUSCHELLO, Deceased (04/A/B/P-85) — Letters Testamentary and Letters of Trusteeship were issued in the within estate to Lynn Albano on March 8, 2004. Lynn Albano subsequently died on December 26, 2016.Ronald J. Muschello, a/k/a Ronald Muschello and Joseph R. Muschello, the nominated successor executors and nominated successor trustees, seek to be appointed and have consented to the waiving of a formal accounting by the estate of the deceased fiduciary. Jurisdiction has been obtained over all necessary parties and no opposition to the requested relief has been filed. Upon review of all papers submitted, the applications are granted.Successor Letters Testamentary and Successor Letters of Trusteeship shall issue to Ronald J. Muschello, a/k/a Ronald Muschello and Joseph R. Muschello, upon their duly qualifying according to law. Upon the consent of the successor fiduciaries, the Court waives the judicial settlement of the account of the deceased executor and trustee.The Court dispenses with the filing of a bond.The Letters Testamentary and Letters of Trusteeship heretofore issued to Lynn Albano on March 8, 2004, are hereby revoked.Submit Decree.Dated: December 22, 2017ESTATE OF ROBERT M. ROMAGNOLO, Deceased (04/H/P-100) — In this proceeding, it appears that Robert Romagnolo, a distributee, may be a person under a disability pursuant to SCPA 103(40)(e).Accordingly, the Court appoints Jack Stern, Esq., pursuant to SCPA 311 as the Designee for Robert Romagnolo.In addition to the service of process under SCPA 307 upon the alleged incapacitated person, a copy of the process issued shall be served by personal delivery upon the Designee at least ten (10) days before the return date of the Citation.This decision shall constitute the Order of the Court.Proceed accordingly.Dated: December 11, 2017ESTATE OF MARIE STARACE KNEE, A/K/A MARIE STARACE, Deceased (14/106/H) — In this contested turnover proceeding, the core issue at dispute between the parties is a straight forward discovery dispute.The MacLean Law Firm P.C., (hereinafter “Counsel for the Petitioner”) filed a motion on behalf of Salvatore Starace, Administrator C.T.A of the Estate of Marie Starace Knee on April 24, 2017 seeking the following relief:1. Pursuant to CPLR 3124, compelling the Respondents to comply within ten (10) days without any further objection to the Petitioner’s First Notice for Discovery and Inspection;2. Pursuant to CPLR 3103, for a protective order as pertaining to discovery demands by Respondent;3. Pursuant to CPLR 3126, precluding the Respondents from proffering any evidence or testimony in the SCPA 2103 and 2104 proceeding;4. Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130 1.1, ordering the Respondents to pay petitioner’s costs, fees and expenses incurred in connection with this motion;5. Amending the Scheduling Order issued by this Court on February 10, 2017; and6. For such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.John A. Passarello, (hereinafter “Counsel for the Respondents”) filed an Affidavit in Opposition on May 2, 2017 on behalf of Papa Real Estate I, LLC (“Papa Real Estate”), Joseph Priolo, Vincent Priolo and Pasquale Priolo seeking a denial of Petitioner’s motion in its entirety. Subsequently, Petitioner’s Counsel filed a Reply Affirmation In Further Support of the Motion on May 9, 2017.PROCEDURAL HISTORYIn this heavily contested matter, counsel for the parties executed a Stipulation, setting forth a discovery schedule on February 1, 2017. On February 10, 2017, the filed stipulation was incorporated by reference herein by decision and order of the Court on February 10, 2017. Since then, a conference was held on March 1, 2017 and the matter was adjourned to April 19, 2017 as a control date for the attorneys to discuss possible settlements with their clients and for discovery to be complied with. On April 19, 2017, Counsel for the interested parties appeared and the motion filed by the Petitioner was made returnable for May 10, 2017 at 10:00 AM. Oral Argument took place on May 10, 2017.DISCUSSIONI. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENT TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERYCounsel for Petitioner first moves pursuant to CPLR 3124 that the Respondent be compelled to respond to the Petitioner’s First Notice for Discovery and Inspection. CPLR 3124 states “If a person fails to respond to or comply with any request, notice, interrogatory, demand, question or order under this article, except a notice to admit under section 3123, the party seeking disclosure may move to compel compliance or a response.”In previous court appearances, Counsel for the Respondent did explain to the Court and opposing counsel that he was waiting on information from his client’s accountant to respond to the discovery.Counsel for the Respondents argues that this portion of the motion is moot since responses to Petitioner’s First Notice for Discovery and Inspection were completed and mailed to the Court and Counsel for Petitioner. (See Paragraph 6 of Affidavit in Opposition dated May 1, 2007). In further review of the file, the Court notes that Counsel for the Respondents, did file a Response to the Petitioner’s First Notice of Discovery on April 21, 2017. These responses were submitted prior to the return date of the motion of May 10, 2017.Counsel for Petitioner, in the Reply Affirmation dated May 8, 2017 (“Reply Affirmation)”, argues that the Document Response is “substantially and materially incomplete” and the documents requested are “unquestionably relevant to the Turnover Proceeding” (See Paragraph 31 of Affirmation in Support of Motion dated April 18, 2017). In addition, Counsel for Petitioner particularly takes exception to the sufficiency of Demands 3-8, 9-10, 11-15, 19-22 and 25. Counsel for the Petitioner in their papers submitted has not taken take exception to Demand 1-2, 16-18 and 26-34.Article 31 of the CPLR determines the items that are discoverable. Generally, CPLR 3101 directs full disclosure of all evidence that is material and necessary, and which will “assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity” (Allen v. Crowell Collier Publ’g. Co., 21 NY2d 403 [1968]; Matter of Carvel, 168 Misc2D 442 [Sur Ct, Westchester County 1996]). Courts have wide discretion in determining whether the proposed discovery satisfies such standards, generally using a test of usefulness and reasonableness (Allen, supra; Paliotto v. Hartman, 2 AD2d 866 [2d Dept. 1956]). Accordingly, discovery requested should be sufficiently related to the issues at hand, and should satisfy the Court that the information is being sought in good faith for possible use as evidence. Discovery is a well-worn path under Article 31 of the CPLR. §3120 allows for discovery and inspection “which are in the possession, custody or control of the party or person served.”The Court will first review Demands 3 through and including 6 as they address the documents, communications regarding agreements, minutes and resolutions of Papa Real Estate.A. Petitioner’s Demands 3 through and including Demand 6Demand 3 demands “Any and all Operating Agreements, resolutions, member or manager agreements and any other agreements of Papa Real Estate.”Counsel for Respondents in response to Demand 3 did attach a copy of the Operating Agreement in Exhibit B of the Respondent’s Response to Petitioners First Notice of Discovery and Inspection.Counsel for Petitioner via Reply Affirmation has informed the Court that they are aware of a Resolution of Papa Real Estate dated November 20, 2013 and have not received it. Counsel for Petitioner argues that “the surviving members of Papa Real Estate purportedly signed an Agreement to continue Papa Real Estate and buyout the Estate’s interest therein.” See, paragraph 10 of the Affirmation in Support dated April 18, 2017. The Court finds that an agreement and/or resolution to buyout the interest of the Estate is relevant to the valuation of the business. Accordingly, the Petitioner has established the relevancy of the Agreement and/or Resolution of Papa Real Estate dated November 20, 2013 and the motion to compel said Agreement and/or Resolution-or a response as to why such Agreement and/or Resolution cannot be provided is granted. In addition, Counsel for Respondents are compelled to provide a response as to Demand 4 and whether there are any other documents, communications concerning Operating Agreements, resolutions, member or manager agreements and any other agreements of Papa Real Estate not otherwise provided in Demand number 3.Demand 5 demands the following “Any and all minutes of the organizational, annual and all other meeting of the organizers, member and managers of Papa Real Estate.”Demand 6 demands the following “All Documents and Communication concerning minutes of the organizational, annual and all other meeting of the organizers, members and managers of Papa Real Estate not otherwise provided in response to demand number 5.”Counsel for Respondents answered none as to Demand 5 and Demand 6. N.Y. Ltd. Liab. Co. Law §1102(b) states that “Any member may, subject to reasonable standards as may be set forth in, or pursuant to, the operating agreement, inspect and copy at his or her own expense, for any purpose reasonably related to the member’s interest as a member, the records referred to in subdivision (a) of this section, any financial statements maintained by the limited liability company for the three most recent fiscal years and other information regarding the affairs of the limited liability company as is just and reasonable.”N.Y. Ltd. Liab. Co. Law §1102(a)(5) requires the limited liability company to maintain “a copy of the limited liability company’s federal, state and local income tax or information returns and reports, if any, for the three most recent fiscal years.” The estate has a membership interest in Papa Real Estate and is therefore entitled to inspect the records of the company (see, Sachs v. Adeli, 16 AD3d 52.)In addition, Article III Section 4 of the Operating Agreement of Papa Real Estate dated October 15, 2008 states “Each member may inspect and copy, at his own expense, for any purpose reasonably related to such member’s interest as a member, the Articles of Organization, the Operating Agreement, minutes of any meeting of members and all tax returns or financial statements of the company for the three years immediately preceding his inspection, and other information regarding the affairs of this company as is just and reasonable.”Accordingly, the petitioner has established the relevancy of the documents requested in Demands 5 and 6 and the motion to compel Demands 5 and 6 or a response as to why the documents demanded in Demands 5 and 6 cannot be provided is granted for the three most recent fiscal years pursuant to the timeline allowed in the Operating Agreement for Papa Real Estate, dated October 15, 2008, and N.Y. Ltd. Liab. Co Law 1102(a) and (b).B. Petitioner’s Demands 7 and 8Demand 7 demands the following “Any and all income tax returns and K-1 or other tax reporting information forms filed by or on behalf of Papa Real Estate including all schedules relating thereto.”Demand 8 demands the following “All Documents and Communications concerning income tax returns and K-1 or other tax reporting information forms filed by or on behalf of Papa Real Estate not otherwise provided in response to demand number 7.”Counsel for Respondents provided the following documents that were “in the possession of the respondents” in response:a. Notice from IRS dated 11-04-2008 assigning Employer Identification Number to PAPA REAL ESTATE I, LLCb. Statement received on April 20, 2014 by Vincent Priolo from Sidney Hoffman, CPA setting forth “Income and Expenses” for Papa Real Estate I, LLC “For Years Ending “2013″ to 2016.c. Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) 2016 for Estate of Marie Staraced. Accounting by [X] Administrator by Gary D. Gotlin, Public Administrator sworn to the 7th day of January 2016 covering from May 22, 2015 to September 1, 2015.Counsel for Petitioner has conceded that Counsel for Respondents has produced a K-1 for 2016. Counsel for Petitioner argues the Respondents failed to produce any other documents requested in Demand 7 and 8 and/or have not provided an explanation for their failure to do so. With respect to Demand 7 and 8, tax returns and K-1′s are directly relevant to the valuation of a business. Accordingly, the petitioner has established the relevancy of the documents requested in Demands 7 and 8 and the motion to compel Demands 7 and 8 or a response as to why the documents demanded in Demands 7 and 8 cannot be provided is granted for the three most recent fiscal years pursuant to the timeline allowed in the Operating Agreement for Papa Real Estate dated October 15, 2008 and N.Y. Ltd. Liab. Co Law 1102(a) and (b).C. Petitioner’s Demands 9 and 10Demand 9 demands the following “All Documents and Communications concerning checking accounts in which Papa Real Estate has an ownership interest (whether individually, as joint tenant, as tenant-in-common, as beneficiary, or as creator), including but not limited to monthly and periodic statements, cancelled checks and check registers.”Demand 10 demands the following “All Documents and Communications concerning brokerage, investment, savings, money market, or other accounts in which Papa Real Estate has an ownership interest (whether individually, as joint tenant, as tenant-in-common, as beneficiary or as creator), including but not limited to monthly and periodic statements.”Counsel for Respondents responded to both Demands and stated “Demand too broad and vague. Upon specification of years documents will be compiled and provided.” (See Page 2 of Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s First Notice for Discovery and Inspection). Counsel for Petitioner argues that the Petitioner cannot be any more specific than he was in his demands. The Court finds that Demands 9 and 10 are broad and vague, however, pursuant to the Operating Agreement for Papa Real Estate dated October 15, 2008 and N.Y. Ltd. Liab. Co. Law 1102(a) and (b), a member may request documents for the three most recent fiscal years. In addition, documents and communications regarding checking accounts, brokerage, investment, savings, money market or other accounts in the name of Papa Real Estate are relevant and the request for them is fair and reasonable. Rather than have, counsel for the petitioner submit a second Notice of Discovery, Counsel for Respondents are directed to produce the documents requested in Demands 9 and 10 for the three most recent fiscal years or a response as to why these documents cannot be provided. Further, it should be noted that Counsel for Respondents is willing to comply upon the specification of the years (see, Page 2 and 3 of Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s First Notice for Discovery and Inspection).D. Petitioner’s Demands 11 through and including 15Demand 11 demands the following “All Documents and Communications concerning any bank, escrow or other accounts that have been used or are currently being used to hold the Decedent’s Estate’s share of rent monies received by Papa Real Estate including but not limited to monthly and periodic statements.”Counsel for Respondents referred to Response 7 in reply to this demand. Included in Response 7 via Exhibit C is included an Accounting from May 22, 2015 to September 1, 2015 that has attached to it a Statement of Principal Received. This is the period of time that the Public Administrator served as the Administrator of the estate of the decedent. Petitioner was appointed as the Administrator C.T.A of the decedent’s estate on August 31, 2015. In addition, Counsel for Respondents provided a one page document that purportedly lists the rental income collected. Counsel for Respondent in Response 7 responds that they provided all that Respondents had possession of.Documents and communications regarding bank, escrow or other accounts that are being used for rent monies received by Papa Real Estate are relevant to the valuation of Papa Real Estate. Accordingly, respondents are compelled to produce the documents requested in Demand 11 for the three most recent fiscal years or a response as to why these documents cannot be provided.Demand 12 demands the following “Any and all appraisals and/or valuations of Papa Real Estate or any of its assets” and Demand 13 demands “All Documents and Communications concerning appraisals and/or valuations of Papa Real Estate or any of its assets not otherwise provided in response to demand number 12.Counsel for Respondents has provided an appraisal dated October 6, 2013 with a cover letter from Sidney Hoffman, CPA dated September 2, 2015. It should be noted that the date of death of the decedent was October 6, 2013. The motion to compel demand 12 and demand 13 is denied with prejudice.Demand 14 demands the following: “Any and all certified or uncertified balance sheets listing all assets and liabilities of Papa Real Estate.” And Demand 15 demands “All Documents and Communications concerning certified or uncertified balance sheets listing all assets and liabilities of Papa Real Estate not otherwise provided in response to demand number 14.” Counsel for Respondents response directs Counsel for Petitioner to Response 7 (see, Demand 7 above for all of the documentation that was provided in Response to Demand). Included in Response 7 is a one page report prepared by Sidney Hoffman that lists income and expenses for the time period from October 2013 to 2016. Counsel for Petitioner argues that this documentation provided by Mr. Hoffman is not sufficient. Certified or uncertified balance sheets listing all assets and liabilities of Papa Real Estate and documents and communications concerning the certified or uncertified balance sheets of Papa Real Estate are relevant to the valuation of Papa Real Estate. In addition, this demand is fair and reasonable as it relates to the affairs of the business. Therefore, the motion to compel Demand 14 is granted and respondents are directed to produce the three most recent fiscal years requested in Demands 14 and 15 or a response as to why these documents cannot be provided.E. Petitioner’s Demands 19 through and including 22Demand 19 demands the following “Any and all insurance policies owned by Papa Real Estate” and Demand 20 demands “All Documents and Communications concerning insurance policies owned by Papa Real Estate not otherwise provided in in response to demand number 19.” Counsel for Respondents responds that there is Fire and Liability Insurance in existence for 424 Clinton Street, Brooklyn, New York 11231. However, Counsel for Respondents did not provide the insurance documentation. An Insurance Policy can be relevant when determining the valuation of a business. Accordingly, the petitioner has established the relevancy of the insurance policy and the motion to compel said fire and liability insurance policy or a response as to why such policy cannot be provided is granted.Demand 21 demands the following: “Any and all rent rolls, rent receipts, rent schedules, leases and management agreements concerning 424 Clinton Street” and Demand 22 demands “All Documents and Communications concerning rent rolls, rent receipts, rent schedules, leases and management agreements concerning 424 Clinton Street not otherwise provided in response to demand number 21.” Counsel for Respondent provided copies of lease agreements for 424 Clinton Street in Exhibit E (see, Page 4 of Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s First Notice of Discovery and Inspection).Counsel for Petitioner in paragraph 6 of the Reply Affirmation dated May 8, 2017 argues:“Although paragraph 21 of the Document Response states that the lease agreement for apartment 4L is part of Exhibit E, it was not provided. Furthermore, the Respondents did not provide the lease agreement for apartment 2R or any explanation as to why the lease agreement for apartment 2R was not provided. Also, the Respondents only provided lease agreements that went into effect in 2016. The Respondents did not provide any lease agreements that were in effect from the date of the Decedent’s death in 2013 through 2016. Without these leases, the Petitioner has no way to verify the rental income for the years 2013 through 2016″ (see, paragraph 6 of Reply Affidavit dated May 8, 2017).Counsel for Respondents via Exhibit E provided copies of leases for the following:a. Apartment 4R from June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017;b. Apartment 4L from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017;c. Apartment 3R from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017;d. Apartment 3L from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017;e. Apartment 2L from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017;f. Apartment 1L from July 15, 2016 to July 31, 2017; andg. Apartment 1R from December 1, 2016 to November 30, 2017.The Court finds that lease agreements are relevant to the valuation of the business and to determine what the rental income of the business was from 2013 through 2016. Accordingly, the Petitioner has established the relevancy of the lease agreements and the motion to compel all lease agreements from 2013 through and including 2016-or a response as to why such lease agreements cannot be provided is granted.F. Petitioner’s Demand 25Demand 25 demands the following “All Documents and Communications concerning capital improvements concerning 424 Clinton Street.” Counsel for Respondents answered, “None available at current time”. The parcel of real property, known as 424 Clinton Street located in Brooklyn, New York, is owned and leased by Papa Real Estate. All documents and communications concerning capital improvements concerning 424 Clinton Street are relevant to the valuation of Papa Real Estate. Additionally, the one-page document prepared by Sidney Hoffman, C.P.A., lists repairs ranging from $3,833.00 to $84,151.00. There needs to be clarification if any of these were capital improvements. Accordingly, respondents are compelled to produce all documents and communications concerning capital improvements concerning 424 Clinton Street in the three most recent fiscal years or a response as to why these documents cannot be provided.II. PETITIONER’S MOTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3103 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERCounsel for Petitioner seeks a protective order concerning Respondent’s Discovery Demands for their client pursuant to CPLR 3103 as pertaining to discovery demand by Respondents. CPLR 3103 (a) states: “The Court may at any time on its own initiative, or on motion of any party or of any person from whom discovery is sought, make a protective order denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device. Such order shall be designed to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts.”Counsel for Petitioner in paragraph 37 of the Affirmation in Support of Motion argues that the “Respondent’s Discovery Demands are outside the scope of CPLR 3101 discovery.” Further in paragraph 38, Counsel for Petitioner argues that “The Respondents also seek numerous documents and interrogatories regarding Court documents, letters received by their own attorneys and documents related to Papa Real Estate that are already in their possession or are easily obtainable from the Court file.On March 13, 2017, Counsel for Respondent’s filed the following with this Court:1. Respondent’s First Demand for Discovery and Inspection;2. Respondent’s First Demand for Interrogatories to Salvatore Starace, Administrator c.t.a of the Estate of Marie Starace Knee aka Marie Starace;3. Demand pursuant to CPLR 3101(d); and4. Demand for statements and/or video/audio tapes.Upon review of the Respondent’s demands, Counsel for Petitioner shall not be required to provide any documents that are already in the Court file. However, at the control date a new discovery schedule shall be set with dates for the Petitioner to respond to Respondent’s discovery demands.III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126Counsel for Petitioner seeks an order precluding the Respondents from proffering any evidence or testimony in the SCPA 2103 and 2104 proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3126.Counsel for Petitioner, in Paragraph 36 of the Affirmation in Support of Motion, argues “because the respondents have intentionally and willfully failed to comply with the Petitioner’s Document Demands and the Court’s Discovery Order, the Respondents are not entitled to receive discovery from the Petitioner.”Granting a motion to preclude should be granted only where the conduct of the resisting party is shown to be willful, contumacious or in bad faith. Where a party disobeys a court order and thereby frustrates disclosure, the striking or dismissing of a pleading is within the broad discretion of the court (Ranfort v. Peak Tours, 250 AD2d 747 [2d Dept 1998]).In this matter, the Court is not persuaded that such a drastic remedy is warranted. Counsel for Respondent on previous appearances on the record has informed the Court and Counsel for Petitioner that he was waiting to receive a document from the Respondent’s Accountant in order to complete responses to discovery. Counsel for Respondents has kept the Court and Counsel for the Petitioner informed. In addition, the parties have participated in conferences to attempt to settle the matter at hand. As previously addressed above in this decision, Counsel for Respondents has filed Respondent’s Responses to Petitioner’s First Notice of Discovery and Inspection on April 21, 2017 prior to the filing of this pending motion.Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is denied with prejudice.COSTS, FEES AND EXPENSESCounsel for the Petitioner moves pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 ordering Respondents to pay to the Petitioner costs, fees and expenses incurred in connection with this motion. Based on the review of the papers submitted, the motion for costs, fees and expenses are hereby denied with prejudice.CONCLUSIONThis matter is restored to the court calendar on February 7, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. for control purposes and to set a new discovery schedule. A copy of this decision shall be sent via regular mail to the MacLean Law Firm, PLLC and Passarella & LaRosa, Esqs.This decision shall constitute the order of the court.Dated: December 27, 2017ESTATE OF EDWARD C. SULLIVAN, A/K/A EDWARD SULLIVAN, Deceased (17/675/A) — Limited Letters of Temporary Administration were issued by Decision and Order of this Court on November 20, 2017 to Dominick M. Grosso, a/k/a Dominick Grosso.The temporary administrator now seeks to amend and extend their authority to include the following authority:1. To be provided with the keys to the premises known as 30 Sherwood Avenue, Staten Island, NY 10309 by the New York City Police Department.2. To have the premises unsealed by the New York City Police Department.The application to amend and extend his authority is granted.The Limited Letters of Temporary Administration are now amended and extended to allow the administrator:1. To be provided with the keys to the premises known as 30 Sherwood Avenue, Staten Island, NY 10309 by the New York City Police Department.2. To have the premises unsealed by the New York City Police Department.The Court will dispense with the filing of a bond.The term of the office of the temporary administrator is six (6) months from the date of this decision. No distribution of assets is permitted pending the further order of this Court.This decision shall constitute the Order of the Court.Dated: December 18, 2017ESTATE OF BURHAN THAQI, A/K/A BURAN THAQI, Deceased (17/387/A) — Letters of Limited Administration were issued on August 2, 2017 to Lyra Thaqi, and amended and extended via decision and order of this court on August 23, 2017.The administratrix has now sought the court’s permission to extend her authority, and the Guardian ad Litem, appointed on behalf of infant necessary parties, has submitted his consent to the below specific authority:1. Bidding for, negotiating agreements, and executing contracts on behalf of USA Roofing Company Corp. regarding new work to be performed by the business;2. Processing payroll, and well as making payments to the Local 28 Union for required dues and contributions to be remitted by USA Roofing Company Corp. as a roofing contractor;3. Executing documents relating to on-going and past work performed by USA Roofing Company Corp., including but not limited to lien waivers, Requisitions for Payment (applications for payment), submitting Change Orders, negotiating Change Orders;4. Executing checks and performing other banking matters normally performed by an owner of a company on a day-to-day basis;5. Executing the tax returns for USA Roofing Company Corp.;6. Submitting verification of management and ownership forms for USA Roofing Company Corp. to such governmental authorities as USA Roofing Company Corp. may be registered and approved to perform work for currently such as the School Construction Authority (“SCA”), the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) and such other agencies that USA Roofing Company Corp. may become registered and approved to perform work for in the future;7. Performing such other management tasks as may become necessary to operate and conduct the business in the ordinary course of operations;8. To act as the representative of USA Roofing Company Corp. in the following cases, provided that if and when there is a final settlement in the cases shall seek Surrogate’s Court approval to enter into those settlements; and9. Retain The Scher Law Firm, LLP to represent USA Roofing Company Corp. in the following cases:a. In the matter pending in the Eastern District of New York, under Docket Number 16-CV-4915 entitled Lala, et al. v. USA Roofing Company Corp.b. In the matter pending in the Supreme Court, New York County, under Index Number 651437/2013 entitled Juarez, et al. v. USA Roofing Company Corp., et al.Her application to amend and extend her authority in sections 1 through and including 8 above is granted. Regarding section 9, the administratrix shall have the authority to retain The Scher Law Firm or any other firm that the administratrix deems advisable.The administratrix is cautioned that the limited authority that she has is governed by the rules of care and prudence and the court has not by these proceedings approved or made any independent judgment as to the limited authority granted to the Administratrix, the responsibility for which must be carried by the Administratrix.This decision shall constitute the Order of the Court.Dated: December 27, 2017ESTATE OF ANNE TRALONGO, A/K/A ANNE E. TRALONGO, Deceased (13/957/A) — The limited executrix of this estate has petitioned to modify the limitations contained in the Limited & Restricted Letters Testamentary issued by this Court on September 26, 2013, so as to enable her to compromise a personal injury cause of action on behalf of the decedent.Jurisdiction has been obtained over all necessary parties, including the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.Upon review of all the papers submitted, the application to modify the limitations and to settle the personal injury claim in the amount of $75,000.00 is approved.Pursuant to EPTL 5-4.6, attorney fees, inclusive of disbursements, were fixed and allowed in the total amount of $27,062.56 to Ameduri, Galante & Friscia, Esqs. Medicare shall be paid $11,076.93 as full payment of their claims. Philip Tralongo shall be paid $21,700.00 as reimbursement for payment of decedent’s funeral expenses.The net balance in the amount of $15,160.51 shall be paid to Jean Bennett, as executrix, to be distributed in accordance with the Last Will and Testament of the decedent.Incidental relief prayed for is granted.Decree signed.Dated: November 22, 2017ESTATE OF DIEGO FERNANDO VEGA, Deceased (16/252/A) — This is an application by the limited administratrix of the estate to modify the limitations contained in the Limited Letters of Administration issued by this Court on March 22, 2016, so as to enable her to compromise a wrongful death and personal injury cause of action on behalf of the decedent.Jurisdiction over all interested parties, including the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, has been obtained.The Guardian ad Litem, appointed on behalf of an infant distributee, has filed his report recommending the granting of the application. Although the Guardian ad Litem has performed over ten (10) hours of legal services, the Guardian ad Litem has requested that his fee be limited to $1,500.00. Accordingly, the fee of the Guardian ad Litem is fixed in the amount of $1,500.00, and shall be paid as an administration expense of this estate within thirty (30) days of the date of the Compromise Decree.Upon review of all the papers submitted and the recommendation of the Guardian ad Litem, the application to modify the limitations and to settle the wrongful death and personal injury cause of action in the amount of $50,000.00 is approved.Attorney fees, inclusive of disbursements, are fixed and allowed in the total amount of $16,883.33 payable to Jamie C. Rosenberg, Esq. Scamardella Funeral Home shall be paid $6,010.00 for the payment of unpaid funeral expenses of the decedent. The allocation of the net proceeds shall be 100 percent to the cause of action for wrongful death.The distribution of the net proceeds in the amount of $25,606.67 shall be in the manner as set forth in the amended petition, and as recommended by the Guardian ad Litem within his report. The share of the infant distributee, currently available for distribution shall be held within FDIC insured attorney escrow accounts by the Law Offices of Jamie C. Rosenberg, as attorneys and escrow agent for Claudia Rozon Vega, Administratrix of the Estate of Diego Fernando Vega, pending the appointment of the Guardian of the Property of the infant. Upon the issuance of Letters of Guardianship of the Property, the funds shall be deposited pursuant to the terms and conditions of said letters.Limitations within the Limited Letters of Administration shall remain in effect as against any other party, and any and all other civil actions until further Order of this Court.Incidental relief prayed for is granted.Submit decree upon notice of settlement to the Guardian ad Litem. The final decree must contain decretal provisions providing for the following:1. The immediate notification to the Guardian ad Litem of the deposit of the infant’s share of the net recovery into an insured attorney escrow account;2. The immediate notification in writing by the fiduciary to the Guardian ad Litem of the date and details of the payment or delivery to the Guardian of the Property of the Ward of the Guardian ad Litem;3. The proper deposit of the funds in accordance with the guardianship letters decree;4. The filing of a supplemental report by the Guardian ad Litem within sixty (60) days from the Final Decree indicating whether or not the Decree has been complied with, insofar as it affects the Ward.Dated: November 3, 2017Surrogate IngramESTATE OF JANE M. LYONS, Deceased (13/580/B) — In this accounting proceeding, it appears that Gregory Lee Bates, a distribute, is an incapacitated person, thereby requiring the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem pursuant to SCPA 403(2).Accordingly, the Court appoints Jack Stern, Esq., as the Guardian ad Litem to protect the interest of such party.The appointment is effective upon the Guardian ad Litem filing with the Court Form UCS 872 entitled “Notice of Appointment and Certification of Compliance,” and upon the Guardian ad Litem duly qualifying pursuant to Uniform Rules for the Surrogate’s Court Section 207.13(A).This decision shall constitute the Order of the Court.Dated: October 20, 2017ESTATE OF ROSARIO OLGA SAAVEDRA, Deceased (15/453) — In this probate proceeding, it appears that unknown distributes, and/or distributes whose whereabouts are unknown exist, thereby requiring the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem pursuant to SCPA 403(2).Accordingly, the Court appoints Anthony Marra, Esq., as the Guardian ad Litem to protect the interest of such parties.The appointment is effective upon the Guardian ad Litem filing with the Court Form UCS 872 entitled “Notice of Appointment and Certification of Compliance,” and upon the Guardian ad Litem duly qualifying pursuant to Uniform Rules for the Surrogate’s Court Section 207.13(A).This decision shall constitute the Order of the Court.Dated: October 20, 2017DECREES SIGNED MATTER OF KELLY KORCHAK; Janet Gutowski; Vincenza Carucci; Helen Gilbert; Fatime Jance; Robert Harrison; Nick Damante; Donald Persichetty; Patricia Ahearn; Jean DeSantis; Mary Grasso; John Biondo; Anthony Damato; Edna Sigwaldsen; Hugo Acciavatti; Byron Nevels; Arthur R. Somerville; Vincent Quarato; Donald G. Bryant; Marie Carlson; Anni Gusta Katz.GUARDIANSHIPSMATTER OF LISAYA DOM PERIGNON CHAMPAGNE; Jameek Matthew Champagne, Jr.ORDERS SIGNED MATTER OF ANTHONY MEROLA; Anthony Lenza; Costa N. Tesnakis; Annamma Andrews; Margaret Strauss; Anthony Troiano; Michael Kindya; Genevieve Squitieri; Joseph K. Morio, Sr.; Lalmoni Budhan; Salvatore J. Aliotta; Stacey Mandella Bosco; Nancy O’Rourke.
