Surrogate Anderson ESTATE OF MATHIAS GUERRAND, a/k/a MATHIAS GUERRAND-HERMES, Deceased (11-911/C) — At the call of the calendar on October 26, 2022, in this contested accounting in the estate of Mathias Guerrand, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion of the Public Administrator (the “PA”) for summary judgment dismissing certain objections to her account. The grounds for the court’s decision are set forth below. Decedent died intestate on April 21, 2010, survived by four minor children, two marital and two non-marital. Letters of Administration issued to the PA on July 3, 2012. Multiple claims were asserted against decedent’s estate, which is valued at approximately $4,000,000. Valesca Guerrand-Hermes (“Valesca”), decedent’s ex-wife and the mother of his two marital children, Lucien and Clea, asserted a claim for $2,000,000 based on decedent’s failure to maintain a life insurance policy as required under their judgment of divorce. Vladlena Belolipskaia Guerrand-Hermes (“Vladlena”), the mother of Vladi, one of decedent’s nonmarital children, alleged that she is due $2,101,980 in unpaid child support. Decedent’s father, Patrick Guerrand-Hermes (“Patrick”) and decedent’s uncle, Xavier Guerrand-Hermes (“Xavier”) together asserted a claim for $750,000 for a loan they purportedly made to decedent, but which they allege he never repaid. In August 2015, the PA filed her first and final account for the period from April 21, 2010, to July 27, 2015 (the “Account”). On schedule D of the Account, the PA allowed Valesca’s claim for $2,000,000 and Patrick’s and Xavier’s claim for $750,000. Shortly thereafter, Vladlena submitted her claim for $2,101,980 for unpaid child support, which the PA rejected in an amended accounting petition. Three guardians ad litem were appointed, one for the two marital children and one for each of the nonmarital children. Patrick and Xavier did not appear, but Valesca, Vladlena, and the guardians ad litem for each of decedent’s two nonmarital children filed numerous objections to the Account. DISCUSSION The PA sought summary dismissal of three of the parties’ objections, namely: (1) Vladlena’s objection to the PA’s rejection of her child support claim to the extent such claim exceeds $28,109.73; (2) Vladlena’s objection to the PA’s allowance of Valesca’s claim for $2,000,000; and (3) the objections of Vladlena and the guardians ad litem for decedent’s nonmarital children to the PA’s allowance of Patrick’s and Xavier’s $750,000 claim.
Summary judgment is available only where no material issues of fact exist (see e.g. Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). The party seeking summary judgment “must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (id. at 324 [citations omitted]). If such a showing is made, the party opposing summary judgment must then come forward with proof establishing a genuine issue of material fact or must provide an acceptable excuse for the failure to do so (see e.g. Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).
