Surrogate Gingold ESTATE OF KOU P. LAM, a/k/a KOU PONG LAM, Deceased (21-3818/A/B/C) — This petition by the administrator of the estate of Kou P. Lam to modify the restrictions on his letters to allow him to collect and distribute proceeds from the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, on account of decedent’s personal injury and wrongful death, and to judicially settle his account with respect to those proceeds is granted. The restrictions are modified to the extent necessary to allow this compromise, and the administrator is authorized to collect the award and execute the necessary receipts and releases. The proceeds are allocated 100 percent to personal injury. The fees of petitioner’s attorney are fixed and determined. Petitioner’s request for reimbursement for funeral expenses is granted. The balance of the settlement proceeds shall be distributed as set forth in the decree. The account is settled, and the decree is signed. Dated: June 26, 2023
ESTATE OF KATHIE COBLENTZ a/k/a KATHIE L. COBLENTZ, Deceased (21-2631/A) — In this uncontested probate proceeding, petitioner seeks to have an instrument purporting to be decedent’s last will and testament admitted to probate as an ancient document. The Public Administrator appeared pursuant to SCPA 1123 and does not oppose the application. Decedent died on April 3, 2021, survived by three maternal first cousins and three paternal first cousins. In the propounded instrument, dated July 31, 1990, decedent left 20 percent of the estate equally to two charities and the remaining 80 percent equally among three of her first cousins and a first cousin once removed. All of decedent’s distributees, including those who do not take under the propounded instrument, have waived process and consented to probate. The nominated executor is decedent’s long-time friend. The proof establishes that the propounded instrument was found in decedent’s safe deposit box in a bank in Manhattan by an employee of the Public Administrator of New York County, who was then acting under SCPA 1115. The instrument, the execution of which was supervised by an attorney, is unsuspicious in appearance. It contains the signature of decedent and the two witnesses, who also attested to the instrument’s validity. However, self-proving affidavits (SCPA 1406) could not be obtained because, after so many years, one witness was elderly and infirm and the other witness could not be located. Although decedent was a New York domiciliary on July 31, 1990, when the propounded instrument was executed (and thereafter), there is no dispute that the instrument was prepared by an attorney in Michigan and executed there. EPTL 3-5.1[c] provides that the court can determine the validity of a New York domiciliary’s will under New York law or the law of the jurisdiction where that instrument was executed. To be admitted in New York as an ancient document, a will must be more than 20 years old, appear unsuspicious in nature, and be found in a natural place of custody (see e.g. Matter of Kamhi, NYLJ, Dec. 5, 2018, at 26, col 4 [Sur Ct, NY County 2018]; Matter of Tier, 3 Misc 3d 587 [Sur Ct, NY County 2004]). An attestation clause provides weight to the presumption that the instrument was duly executed (Kamhi at 26; Matter of Walker, NYLJ, Dec. 30, 2015, at 29, col 4 [Sur Ct, NY County 2015]). Here, the record amply demonstrates that the propounded instrument meets each of New York’s requirements for admission to probate as an ancient instrument. The Court notes that the instrument also appears to have been duly executed under Michigan law. Accordingly, the instrument, dated July 31, 1990, is admitted to probate. Decree signed. Dated: June 21, 2023
