In this contested proceeding to judicially settle the amended account of the administrator, a daughter of the decedent, the decedent’s other daughter and only other distributee, filed pro se objections to the amended account. After the court denied the administrator’s motion to dismiss those objections (see Matter of Scott, NYLJ, July 20, 2017, at 24 [Sur Ct, Bronx County 2017]), the objectant daughter filed a document wherein she requested that her objections be withdrawn and the matter submitted for a decision. Based on the court’s own determination that the account as filed could not be judicially settled without further inquiry, the matter was set down for an inquest. The administrator and her counsel appeared for the inquest, however, the objectant failed to appear. The decedent died intestate on January 11, 2011 and letters of administration were issued on July 7, 2011. The amended account dated December 7, 2015 reflects, inter alia, total charges of $44,939.58 less total Schedule C expenses of $26,613.33, leaving a balance on hand of $18,326.25 as per Schedule G. In a note to her account the petitioner explained that the amount actually on hand in the estate account was $14,427, a difference of $3,899.25. She explained that she was attempting to locate further documentation to account for the inconsistency. The amended account fails to list decedent’s Mitchell Lama cooperative apartment and the administrator maintained that her son, who allegedly lived with the decedent, had succession rights to the apartment and the apartment is not an estate asset. In its decision denying the administrator’s motion to dismiss the objections, the court found that the documentation submitted in support of the administrator’s position that the decedent’s cooperative apartment was not an estate asset was not sufficient for the court to make a determination on this issue as the documents merely established that the administrator’s son may have resided with the decedent (Matter of Scott, NYLJ, July 20, 2017). At the inquest the administrator testified that the amended account, as filed, was an accurate account of the assets of the estate and submitted further documentation in support of her account including a bank statement from the estate account showing a balance on hand of $12,385, as of November 20, 2017. In further support of her omission of the value of decedent’s cooperative apartment as an estate asset she submitted a stock certificate issued by the cooperative board, showing her son listed as the registered owner of the cooperative. She also submitted an updated affidavit of income provided to the cooperative board for the year 2016, listing her son as the head of household for the apartment. After the inquest, the administrator filed an affidavit wherein she waived her commissions and her attorney submitted an affirmation wherein he waived any further legal fees and requested that the court approve the attorneys’ fees previously paid. As noted in its prior decision denying the administrator’s request to dismiss the objections (see Matter of Scott, NYLJ, July 20, 2017, at 24), the items listed in Schedule C are not reconciled, and the petitioner has admitted that, to date, she cannot account for the amount that should be on hand as per Schedule G and has submitted no further documentation to reconcile that difference. Accordingly, the administrator’s distributive share shall be reduced by that discrepancy. With regard to the decedent’s cooperative apartment, although the petitioner contends that it is not an estate asset the court finds that the documents offered in support of this claim, including the additional documents offered at the inquest, are insufficient to establish that the administrator’s son legally succeeded to the apartment. Accordingly, the court determines that the decedent’s cooperative apartment is as an asset of the estate. Based on the stock certificate offered into evidence, the value of the shares of stock is $2,650 and the objectant daughter is entitled to half of that sum. With regard to counsel fees, the court notes that although counsel has waived any further fees and also waived a hearing on the fees already paid, he and prior counsel have failed to submit an affirmation of legal services in support of their fees, which the court ordinarily requires in order to pass upon a fee request. The court will hold its decision in abeyance with respect to approval of counsel fees and final settlement of the account until it receives affirmations of services from both counsel. However, there is no reason why an interim distribution cannot be made of the assets currently on hand. Accordingly, an interim decree may be submitted directing distribution of the current assets on hand as directed in this decision. Submit interim decree.
