Surrogate Mella ESTATE OF SAM ABRAM, Deceased (19-2450); (19-2450/A) — Competing applications for the issuance of Letters of Administration in the estate of decedent Sam Abram were before the court at the call of the calendar on October 18, 2019. The petitioner in the first application filed with the court was decedent’s eldest son, Robert M. Abram. The cross-petitioners were decedent’s other children, Carole Abram and Edward A. Abram.1 Decedent, a well-known business person in New York City’s diamond and gemstone trade, died intestate on May 8, 2019. He was survived by his spouse and the above-mentioned three adult children. Decedent’s spouse, Fanny Lucia Mendez Abram, waived her right to serve as Administrator pursuant to a prenuptial agreement between her and decedent, dated April 24, 2015. The estimated gross value of decedent’s property is in excess of $400 million. The court, after hearing the parties extensively on the record, and after considering the numerous submissions in support of each petition, including more than a dozen affidavits of disinterested parties, granted the cross-petition for Letters of Administration. As petitioner and cross-petitioners are decedent’s children, none has priority over the other pursuant to SCPA 1001. In exercising its discretion to select one of multiple distributees with equal rights to serve as administrator, the court may consider such factors as each distributee’s (1) relationship with the decedent; (2) business experience; and (3) familiarity with the decedent’s affairs (Matter of Florio, 26 Misc 3d 1048 [Sur Ct, Nassau County 2009]; Matter of Texin, 38 Misc 3d 1206[A] [Sur Ct, Nassau County 2012]). In addition, in the absence of special circumstances, the court will exercise its discretion in favor of the distributee selected by the distributees entitled to the larger share of the estate (Matter of Djeljaj, 30 Misc 3d 1229[A] [Sur Ct, Bronx County 2011]). In this case, Carole Abram and Edward A. Abram represent the majority interest of the distributees (Matter of McCray, 2012 NY Slip Op 32399[U] [Sur Ct, Nassau County, Sept. 5, 2012]; Matter of Edelson, 88 AD2d 640 [2d Dept 1982]). Additionally, based on the affidavits of several disinterested parties who conducted business with decedent, it is clear that Edward A. Abram was the child with the closest business relationship with decedent and more familiarity with decedent’s assets (Matter of Majorana, NYLJ, Sept. 8, 1999, at 30 [Sur Ct, Kings County]; Matter of Samuels, 204 Misc 842 [Sur Ct, Kings County 1953]). The arguments and evidence provided by Robert M. Abram did not establish that either of the cross-petitioners is unfit or should be disqualified from serving as Administrator (Matter of Texin, supra). In any event, a bond will be imposed to ensure the faithful discharge of the co-administrators’ duties (SCPA 801 [2]). The court concludes that the best interests of the estate will be served by appointment of the cross-petitioners, Carole Abram and Edward A. Abram, as co-administrators (Matter of McCray, supra; see Matter of Eisenstein, 158 AD2d 597 [2d Dept 1990]). As directed by the court on the record on October 18, 2019, the parties have addressed in writing the issue of the amount of the bond to be imposed by the court. After considering those submissions, the court directs that the letters of administration be restricted to reflect that the co-administrators are restrained from selling, encumbering or otherwise disposing of: (a) any asset owned by SIBA Corp.; and (b) any real estate held in the name of the decedent or in the name of entities owned or controlled by decedent, until further order of the court. In addition, the court imposes a bond in the sum of $75,000,000.00 (SCPA 702 [2]; SCPA 801 [1][d]). Decree signed. Clerk to notify. Dated: November 1, 2019
