ESTATE OF SOPHIE GERSON Deceased, and HERMAN GERSON, (13/956); (15/4576) — The proposed global compromise of the breach of contract claims in the estates of Sophie Gerson and Herman Gerson is granted.The restrictions contained in the letters issued to the administrator are removed. He is authorized to collect the settlement proceeds and to execute the necessary receipts and releases.The administrator is authorized to pay the sum of $15,000 to C.I.D.N.Y. — Independent Living Services, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement approved by Supreme Court, New York County. He also is authorized to pay: $10,000 to Gleason & Koatz, LLP, for attorney’s fees and $5,000 for disbursements, $30,000 to The Law Office of Sylvie L.F. Richards, Esq., PLLC for attorney’s fees and $5,000 for disbursements, and $10,000 to the Law Offices of G. Oliver Koppell & Associates for attorney’s fees. The net proceeds shall be paid to decedents’ distributees as set forth in the petition.The account is settled and the decree signed.Dated: November 30, 2017ESTATE OF SOPHIE GERSON Deceased, and HERMAN GERSON, (13/956/A); (15/4576) — The proposed global compromise of the breach of contract claims in the estates of Sophie Gerson and Herman Gerson is granted.The restrictions contained in the letters issued to the administrator are removed. He is authorized to collect the settlement proceeds and to execute the necessary receipts and releases.The administrator is authorized to pay the sum of $15,000 to C.I.D.N.Y. — Independent Living Services, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement approved by Supreme Court, New York County. He also is authorized to pay: $10,000 to Gleason & Koatz, LLP, for attorney’s fees and $5,000 for disbursements, $30,000 to The Law Office of Sylvie L.F. Richards, Esq., PLLC for attorney’s fees and $5,000 for disbursements, and $10,000 to the Law Offices of G. Oliver Koppell & Associates for attorney’s fees. The net proceeds shall be paid to decedents’ distributees as set forth in the petition.The account is settled and the decree signed.Dated: November 30, 2017ESTATE OF MIRIAM RABINOWICZ, Deceased (11/4529/B) — Petitioner, as legatee and co-fiduciary of the estate of a post-deceased legatee, seeks an order compelling the executor of the estate of Miriam Rabinowicz to pay two legacies with interest and surcharging her for legal fees incurred in connection with this application.At the August 23, 2017 call of the calendar, an attorney purporting to represent the executor orally raised two procedural issues, which he contended made the filing of a responsive pleading “premature.” However, the attorney (who never filed a notice of appearance) failed to submit the issues to the court in proper form. Further, he elected not to respond to an October 3, 2017 letter from petitioner’s attorney to the court, and copied to him, asking the court to render a default judgment based on the executor’s failure to file a responsive pleading.Notwithstanding the executor’s default, the court has reviewed the transcript and the procedural issues raised by the attorney, and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, the petition is granted on default to the extent that the executor is directed to pay the $100,000 legacy to petitioner in her individual capacity and the $100,000 legacy to her in her capacity as co-executor of the post-deceased legatee’s estate. Petitioner, in turn, shall file and serve a receipt and release on her own behalf and on behalf of the estate for which she is the fiduciary. Petitioner’s request for a surcharge will be determined after a hearing on a date to be determined.This decision constitutes the order of the court.Dated: December 1, 2017Surrogate MellaESTATE OF HARRY CHANG, Deceased (03/3038/G) — At the call of the November 28, 2017 calendar, the court denied the motion of Diana Van Houtum, a co-executor of the will of Harry Chang, for summary denial of the petition of one of her co-executors, Julia C. Collins (see CPLR 3212). Movant failed to demonstrate that petitioner’s request for an order directing movant to consent to a payment on account of petitioner’s outstanding legal fees (see SCPA 2102 [6]) should be denied as a matter of law.Movant contended that a March 13, 2012 letter agreement, between petitioner and movant, whereby petitioner agreed not to make any payment from the estate account, “unless and until [movant had] approved same in writing,” precluded petitioner from seeking an order directing movant to “comply with such directions as the court may make whenever two or more fiduciaries disagree with respect to any issue affecting the estate” (SCPA 2102 [6]). Movant argued that, if the court were to grant the petition, the court “would effectively rewrite” the March 13, 2012 agreement to insert a requirement that movant not withhold consent unreasonably. A co-executor, however, is duty-bound to act reasonably, in the best interests of the estate (see Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 NY 458, 462 [1928]), and the court has broad discretion to ensure that she does so.Movant’s invocation of EPTL 10-10.7 and 11-1.1(b) is inapposite. The word “instrument,” as used in those statutes, does not refer to an agreement between co-executors.The court observed that, if petitioner were to prevail on her petition, any fee paid to petitioner’s counsel as a result would be subject to review by the court within the context of the pending proceeding to settle the account of Julia C. Collins as co-executor (see Stortecky v. Mazzone, 85 NY2d 518, 526 [1995]).This decision constitutes the order of the court.Dated: November 30, 2017
