Surrogate AndersonESTATE OF ERNST NEIZVESTNY, Deceased (17-910) — In this pre-objection stage of a proceeding to probate a copy of a will, proponent (decedent’s spouse) moves for a protective order prohibiting decedent’s daughter and her attorneys from making statements to the media in connection with information they obtain through discovery. The daughter opposes the motion and cross-moves for an order directing proponent to respond to her discovery demands. At the call of the calendar, the court denied the protective order, granted the cross-motion, and directed the parties to proceed with SCPA 1404 discovery forthwith.BackgroundDecedent was an artist of some renown, especially in his birthplace of Russia. His spouse offered for probate a copy of an instrument purporting to be his will, alleging that the original was destroyed in a fire. The instrument leaves his entire estate to his spouse, to the exclusion of his daughter.Proponent argues that decedent’s daughter and her attorneys have made false or misleading statements to Russian media outlets and that such disclosures may have a prejudicial effect in a jury trial. In addition, she argues that the sale of decedent’s artwork will be negatively impacted by such disclosures.Although a court has discretion to deny, limit, condition, or regulate the use of any disclosure device (CPLR §3103[a]), a court must be mindful of the serious First Amendment implications of such ruling. Here, a review of the record fails to disclose a necessity for prior restraints, and the imposition of a gag order would be, therefore, constitutionally impermissible (Rosenberg Diamond Dev. Corp v. Appel, 290 AD2d 239 [1st Dept. 2002]; Matter of Stern, NYLJ, May 11, 2015, at 22, col 1 [Sur Ct, NY County]). The court also takes note that proponent has other means of legal redress against a publisher of false information.Proceed accordingly.Dated: August 10, 2018ESTATE OF SEYMOUR L. NEWMAN, Deceased (15-3240) — In this contested probate proceeding in the estate of Seymour L. Newman (“decedent”), the beneficiaries named in the propounded instrument have moved to quash a subpoena served upon them. At the calendar, the court granted the motion.Decedent died on April 29, 2015, leaving his entire estate to his caretaker and her husband (collectively, “movants”), and naming his attorney, who drafted the propounded instrument, as executor. Decedent’s niece, one of his three distributees, filed objections to probate and served a subpoena duces tecum upon movants, seeking their federal income tax returns for the years 2007 through 2011, the years that the caretaker had worked for decedent.Objectant has failed to show how movants’ tax information is relevant to the core issue in this proceeding, namely the validity of the purported will. Moreover, disclosure of tax returns is disfavored by NY courts due to their “confidential and private nature” (Nanbar Realty Corp. v. Pater Realty Co, 242 AD2d 208, 209 [1st Dept 1997]; see also Matter of Duzhanksy, NYLJ, Aug. 29, 2016, at 24 [Sur Ct, Kings Cty] [denying objectant's motion in a probate proceeding to the extent it sought production of Decedent's tax returns]). Accordingly, the motion to quash the subpoena was granted.This decision, together with the transcript of the hearing on August 8, 2018, constitutes the order of the court.Dated: August 13, 2018
