ESTATE OF LEONA A. LOVELL, Deceased (03/3582) — This is an application to withdraw funds deposited with the Office of the Comptroller of the State of New York for the benefit of unknown distributees of decedent, Leona A. Lovell.Based upon the proof submitted before a court attorney-referee, the court finds that decedent was survived by two maternal first cousins once-removed, one of whom post-deceased. The court is satisfied that a diligent and exhaustive search has been made, without success, to ascertain the existence of other distributees, that more than three years have elapsed since decedent’s death, and that no claim to a distributive share in the estate has been made by any person other than the distributees. It is, therefore, determined that there are no distributees other than the distributees mentioned above (SCPA §2225).Accordingly, the Comptroller of the State of New York, after deducting fees and charges as provided by law, is directed to pay the funds on deposit to Yvonne Jacqueline Perkins and Trishahn Perkins, as administrator of the estate of Donald “Billy” Arthur Perkins, Jr., post-deceased maternal first cousin once-removed.Settle decree.Dated: January 26, 2018ESTATE OF MATTHEW J. STALA, Deceased (14/2680/A) — In this final accounting of the Public Administrator in the estate of Matthew J. Stala, the court is asked to determine the identity of decedent’s distributees. Based upon the proof submitted at two kinship hearings before a court attorney-referee, the court finds that decedent was survived by one maternal first cousin.The court is satisfied that diligent and exhaustive efforts have been made, without success, to determine whether other distributees exist, that more than three years have passed since decedent’s death, and that no claim to a distributive share in the estate has been made by any person other than the above-mentioned distributees. It is therefore determined that no distributees exist other than those established in the record before the court (SCPA §2225).Accordingly, the Public Administrator is directed to distribute the entire net estate to Geraldine Mead-Johnson. The Public Administrator shall supplement her account by affidavit, and as so supplemented the account is settled.Settle decree.Dated: January 24, 2018ESTATE OF NORMAN L. PECK, Deceased (16/1617);LILIANE PECK, as Preliminary Executor of the Estate of NORMAN L. PECK, Deceased, Plaintiff v. IAN S. PECK and STUBB HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants (16/1617/A);LILIANE PECK, as Preliminary Executor of the Estate of NORMAN L. PECK, Deceased, Plaintiff v. IAN S. PECK, Defendant (16/1617/B) — In these contested proceedings in the estate of Norman Peck, decedent’s son, Ian Peck (who is respondent in the probate proceeding and defendant in two summary actions transferred from Supreme Court, New York County), moved for several types of relief. In the probate proceeding, he sought a protective order against an SCPA 1404 discovery notice served upon him by his sister, Dominique Peck-Meyer, and a stay of discovery pending the establishment of a “motion-briefing schedule” for addressing certain issues relating to the SCPA 1404 discovery rules. Purportedly in all three proceedings, he also sought a stay of discovery pending the establishment of a “motion-briefing schedule” for addressing the safe harbor protections of EPTL 3-3.5 and their relationship to an inter vivos trust created by decedent for the benefit of movant and others. Finally, again in all three proceedings, he asked for sanctions and costs. At the call of the calendar, the court granted the motion in part, to the extent that it requested a protective order against Dominique’s SCPA 1404 discovery notice. The court denied the motion in all other respects.Dominique, a distributee who receives no direct interest under the propounded instrument (she is, by contrast, among the beneficiaries of the inter vivos trust), executed a waiver and consent to probate at the outset of the probate proceeding. Accordingly, she has no standing to participate in discovery (see Matter of Alibayof, NYLJ, March 20, 2017, at 23, col 6 [Sur Ct, NY County]; Matter of Weiss, NYLJ, July 13, 2017, at 22, col 3 [Sur Ct, NY County]). As for the request that discovery be stayed in the probate proceeding, there can be no call for a briefing schedule (whether set by the court or by the parties’ themselves) as to issues that are not the subject of any pending motion (or, indeed, that are outside the ambit of the pending proceedings). Moreover, discovery is not an element of CPLR 3213 actions, which are summary by definition.This decision constitutes the order of the court.Dated: January 26, 2018
