Surrogate AndersonWILL OF HALINA RAGAZZONI, Deceased (15-3664) — At the call of the calendar on December 4, 2018, in this contested probate proceeding, the court granted the unopposed motion of Thomas Poss, as executor of the estate of Eliasz Poss, to be substituted for Eliasz Poss as an objectant in this proceeding.Settle order.Dated: December 11, 2018
ESTATE OF DAVID HASSINE, Deceased (09-3748/C) — This is a motion by the executor of the estate of David Hassine seeking an order striking a note of issue filed with the court.Decedent died on August 29, 2009. His will, dated August 13, 2009, was admitted to probate on October 9, 2009. Letters testamentary issued to decedent’s brother. Decedent’s two children, the sole beneficiaries under the will, commenced a proceeding to remove the executor. At the call of the calendar, the executor informed the court that he had filed his accounting Accordingly, the court held the contested removal “application in abeyance to be considered in the accounting proceeding” (Matter of Hassine, NYLJ, Apr. 3, 2014, at 25, col 4 [Sur Ct, NY County, 2014]). The beneficiaries filed objections to the accounting, and cross-motions for summary judgment followed. In a separate decision, both motions were denied.While the summary judgment motions were pending, the beneficiaries filed a note of issue containing the general caption “In the Matter of the Estate of DAVID HASSINE, Deceased,” and referred to the “Petition for Removal of Executor and Appointment of Successor Executors.” The executor maintains that “[t]he filing of the Note of Issue as to the Removal Petition is a clear violation of the Order holding the Removal Petition in abeyance and directing that it be considered in connection with the accounting proceeding.” Counsel is mistaken. The court order directed that the removal issues would be held in abeyance only until the filing of a jurisdictionally complete accounting in which the court would consider the removal issues. Issue having been joined in the accounting, the subsequent filing of a note of issue was not improper (see CPLR 3402[a] ["At any time after issue is first joined…any party may place a case upon the calendar by filing… a note of issue… and such other data as may be required by the applicable rules of the court in which the note is filed."]). Accordingly, the motion is denied.This decision constitutes the order of the court.Dated: December 10, 2018
