DECISION Although this matter was litigated during the pre-objection period to the probate of the underlying testamentary instrument(s) herein, probate was granted and letters testamentary issued without objection to Judith Pietropinto (petitioner herein) on March 30, 2018. Petitioner has now brought a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 seeking an inquiry and the return of estate property which may be in the possession of Rosemarie Burriesci (respondent herein).BackgroundThe record reflects that captioned decedent died testate on January 9, 2016, survived by four adult children. Petitioner, decedent’s daughter Judith Pietropinto, propounded a will, dated September 4, 1996 and a codicil, dated May 14, 2007, after bringing a proceeding to compel production of decedent’s will against this respondent. The will named Frank Pietropinto, Jr. as executor and Judith Pietropinto as alternate executor. Frank Pietropinto, Jr. renounced his appointment. The 1996 will provides that the decedent’s children share the residuary estate equally, after a bequest to the decedent’s daughters of her jewelry. The decedent also mentioned her real property at 64 Van Sicklen Street in Brooklyn, New York, expressing her request that the home be sold and the proceeds split equally among the four children.In the 2007 codicil, the decedent revokes the language in the prior will concerning the Brooklyn property, providing that she has “…this 14th day of May, 2007, made a gift of my home at 64 Sicklen Street, Brooklyn, New York, to my beloved children Judith Pietropinto, Rosemarie Burriesci, and Frank Pietropinto, Jr.” The decedent then goes on to state that she is doing this because of the lifetime gifts made by the decedent and her husband to daughter Rosalie O’Hara and her daughter’s family. She states that she wishes to “bring equity” to the inheritance left all her children, by “equalizing the treatment” of the children in consideration of “loans, gifts and other monies accessed by Rosalie O’Hara and her husband Vincent O’Hara….” (Article First, Codicil). As noted, respondent herein is one of the decedent’s surviving four (4) children.After motion practice concerning the conduct of examinations pursuant to SCPA 1404, the will and codicil were admitted to probate by this court by decree dated March 29, 2018, without objection.Subsequently, petitioner filed a proceeding seeking an inquiry of respondent concerning “any personal property that the Decedent may have had an interest in at the time of her death and any other assets which may belong to the Estate…” (Petition, p.2, Wherefore Clause, 11).On return of citation, respondent having filed her answer, counsel for the parties agreed that petitioner would be allowed to file a reply, and the matter would be submitted to the court for a determination on the papers.The answer submitted by respondent avers that the decedent “…made inter vivos gifts of all her jewelry and personal possession (sic) during her life time (sic) to her children,” and that “all assets of the decedent were distributed by the decedent during her lifetime according to her wishes.” (Verified Answer to Petition, p.1,
